4 ms·

Imagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to

by o_p 6y ago

Imagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations, its ridiculous and yet the fanboys will defend their shitty practices no matter what

lovecg 6y ago
You can... buy a different phone?
- o_p 6y ago
  Or the goverment could defend me from corporations leveraging their power against consumers?. When companies are clearly having so much power they are influencing media and political opinion its not just their private property like the backyard of a house
  - lovecg 6y ago
    Once we live in the world where the iPhone is the only option then yes, you can make the case that it’s anti-consumer.
TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not just because its views are abhorrent, but because it would gleefully destroy absolutely all forms of dissenting free speech itself if given the opportunity.
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago
  "Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't" There are already laws and means to deal with plotting armed violence. None of them include (or should include) banning the phone company / app company / phone maker / etc.
- o_p 6y ago
  A for-profit corporation like Apple shouldnt be the arbitrer of what constitutes good-faith and bad-faith political debate
  - cocacola1 6y ago
    Unless it impacts the bottom line.
- gwright 6y ago
  > Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. Not condoning any sort of violence or the riots from Wednesday but I think it is worth observing that the problem isn't that there are people who are trying to "overturn a legitimate election result". The problem is that there are people who believe that the election results were not legitimate. They are acting on that premise and so in their mind they are acting to overturn an illegitimate election result. Simply asserting that they are wrong will not change things, in fact it has a good chance of making things altogether worse as it simply emphasizes the grievance that their concerns aren't being addressed. Resolving these issues isn't going to come from simply insisting that the other side is wrong. and it isn't going to come from disappearing Trump. Trump is not the source of the problem. Anything we can do to create extreme transparency and rebuild trust in our voting mechanisms would be a good start. Even if we could magically convince everyone that the vote was 100% accurate as is, the result is still evidence of significant divisions in the American electorate. Resolving these political differences isn't going to be easy. I'm not going to pretend to have some magical solutions to these divisions but we are going to have to find a better way to understand and mediate our differences. We need to find a way to rise above the tribalism that is growing stronger every day.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    This is really a key point. If the same thing that happened on Wednesday happened in Belarus, I'm sure a lot more people would be sympathetic toward it. Sometimes, as a last resort, violence is necessary to depose evil rulers. So the most important question is how did we get to the point where a large portion of the country is living in an alternative factual reality, to the point where they think the U.S. is now like Belarus in this sense. Also, generally, how do we align better as society on what is true and not true. And I have to say that I personally think Twitter banning the other side is potentially going in the wrong direction as far as solving this problem.
  - lc9er 6y ago
    > Simply asserting that they are wrong will not change things No one is “simply asserting”. They’ve dragged this to court and had ~60 cases thrown out for a lack of evidence. They’ve made the choice to ignore this and acted out, violently, at the prompting of their favorite social-media driven personalities.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Swap out a few nouns in the comment and you have a comment describing why the left shouldn’t be allowed to engage in public discourse either due to all of the support given to the BLM riots over the summer. The fact that people seem to be honestly blind to how dangerous this line of reasoning is legitimately astonishes me.
- sneak 6y ago
  Apple changed the pistol emoji to a squirt gun glyph on iOS. It displays differently on iOS and Android now. Apple is indeed pushing a specific political agenda. Regardless of how you feel about gun rights, politically-motivated altering of text is a terrible thing. Imagine if you couldn't type a certain text string on iOS? Altering emoji to be one thing instead of another isn't much different.
wvenable 6y ago
> Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations That's actually how radio works! The stations are licensed by the government. This is actually much better as there is no government involved -- this is just a private company doing what it wants with the software and hardware that it owns -- and you are not restricted by the government to use only their technology.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  I believe o_p meant stations that are approved by the Democratic Party. That's not at all how radio (or free speech) works.
- swiley 6y ago
  That's not quite right (for this reason actually.) Someone pointed it out and they changed the rules long ago so you're allowed to run low power stations without a lisensce so long as you don't interfere with lisenced users.
soupson 6y ago
Apple doesn’t censor Safari.
- danlugo92 6y ago
  They do via not allowing http (non s)
  - soupson 6y ago
    Hmm, http://neverssl.com/ http://neverssl.com/ seems to work for me.
- SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
  They instead cripple it by restricting important functionality to native apps, e.g. WebGL and push notifications, and by preventing users from modifying the system to remove these artificial limitations.
  - rubatuga 6y ago
    Why would WebGL be important for parler?

by o_p 6y ago

lovecg 6y ago

You can... buy a different phone?

o_p 6y ago
Or the goverment could defend me from corporations leveraging their power against consumers?. When companies are clearly having so much power they are influencing media and political opinion its not just their private property like the backyard of a house
- lovecg 6y ago
  Once we live in the world where the iPhone is the only option then yes, you can make the case that it’s anti-consumer.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not just because its views are abhorrent, but because it would gleefully destroy absolutely all forms of dissenting free speech itself if given the opportunity.

cbnotfromthere 6y ago
"Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't" There are already laws and means to deal with plotting armed violence. None of them include (or should include) banning the phone company / app company / phone maker / etc.
o_p 6y ago
A for-profit corporation like Apple shouldnt be the arbitrer of what constitutes good-faith and bad-faith political debate
- cocacola1 6y ago
  Unless it impacts the bottom line.
gwright 6y ago
> Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. Not condoning any sort of violence or the riots from Wednesday but I think it is worth observing that the problem isn't that there are people who are trying to "overturn a legitimate election result". The problem is that there are people who believe that the election results were not legitimate. They are acting on that premise and so in their mind they are acting to overturn an illegitimate election result. Simply asserting that they are wrong will not change things, in fact it has a good chance of making things altogether worse as it simply emphasizes the grievance that their concerns aren't being addressed. Resolving these issues isn't going to come from simply insisting that the other side is wrong. and it isn't going to come from disappearing Trump. Trump is not the source of the problem. Anything we can do to create extreme transparency and rebuild trust in our voting mechanisms would be a good start. Even if we could magically convince everyone that the vote was 100% accurate as is, the result is still evidence of significant divisions in the American electorate. Resolving these political differences isn't going to be easy. I'm not going to pretend to have some magical solutions to these divisions but we are going to have to find a better way to understand and mediate our differences. We need to find a way to rise above the tribalism that is growing stronger every day.
- zucker42 6y ago
  This is really a key point. If the same thing that happened on Wednesday happened in Belarus, I'm sure a lot more people would be sympathetic toward it. Sometimes, as a last resort, violence is necessary to depose evil rulers. So the most important question is how did we get to the point where a large portion of the country is living in an alternative factual reality, to the point where they think the U.S. is now like Belarus in this sense. Also, generally, how do we align better as society on what is true and not true. And I have to say that I personally think Twitter banning the other side is potentially going in the wrong direction as far as solving this problem.
- lc9er 6y ago
  > Simply asserting that they are wrong will not change things No one is “simply asserting”. They’ve dragged this to court and had ~60 cases thrown out for a lack of evidence. They’ve made the choice to ignore this and acted out, violently, at the prompting of their favorite social-media driven personalities.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
Swap out a few nouns in the comment and you have a comment describing why the left shouldn’t be allowed to engage in public discourse either due to all of the support given to the BLM riots over the summer. The fact that people seem to be honestly blind to how dangerous this line of reasoning is legitimately astonishes me.
sneak 6y ago
Apple changed the pistol emoji to a squirt gun glyph on iOS. It displays differently on iOS and Android now. Apple is indeed pushing a specific political agenda. Regardless of how you feel about gun rights, politically-motivated altering of text is a terrible thing. Imagine if you couldn't type a certain text string on iOS? Altering emoji to be one thing instead of another isn't much different.

wvenable 6y ago

> Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations That's actually how radio works! The stations are licensed by the government. This is actually much better as there is no government involved -- this is just a private company doing what it wants with the software and hardware that it owns -- and you are not restricted by the government to use only their technology.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I believe o_p meant stations that are approved by the Democratic Party. That's not at all how radio (or free speech) works.
swiley 6y ago
That's not quite right (for this reason actually.) Someone pointed it out and they changed the rules long ago so you're allowed to run low power stations without a lisensce so long as you don't interfere with lisenced users.

soupson 6y ago

Apple doesn’t censor Safari.

danlugo92 6y ago
They do via not allowing http (non s)
- soupson 6y ago
  Hmm, http://neverssl.com/ http://neverssl.com/ seems to work for me.
SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
They instead cripple it by restricting important functionality to native apps, e.g. WebGL and push notifications, and by preventing users from modifying the system to remove these artificial limitations.
- rubatuga 6y ago
  Why would WebGL be important for parler?