6 ms·
I agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still
by lovecg 6y ago
I agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still in power and Apple is free to express itself as it sees fit.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoYou're arguing as if there were no precedent for this, but there already are bounds to how Apple can "express itself". They cannot refuse to serve people of a certain race for example. So are we in a dangerous place now, or should Apple be allowed to exclude people by race?
- Digory 6y agoShould Apple have to bake a wedding cake for Parler? Discuss.
- danans 6y ago> So are we in a dangerous place now, or should Apple be allowed to exclude people by race? Race is a protected class per the law. Parler is not
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoWhich makes zero difference in principle.
- danans 6y agoIt makes a world of difference when you consider it in the context of American history. Race and the other legally protected classes have been the biggest factors in discrimination in this country - the biggest ways in which US society has violated its creed "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal". Political party has not, nor has "users of a computer application", nor the intersection of those manifested in Parler. But sure, if you algebraically treat race and political party as equivalents without any historical context, the comparison is "in principle" the same, but that is deeply flawed as it requires the conscious exclusion of historical context.
- alkonaut 6y agoWhich group of people is banned from the App Store though? If group A can publish an app following the guidelines and group B is banned while adhering to the same guidelines, that’s clearly discrimination of group B. But if group A and B both are stopped from breaking guidelines equally then how is it discrimination? Guidelines could be written to be exclusive (no apps can use Swahili!) but that’s not what’s going on here is it? Guidelines are neutral. People who think there is a ban on Trump supporters or Conservatives must be seeing something I don’t.
- tomp 6y agoNot really, no. It just requires recognising that corporations are not people and thus don’t deserve freedom of speech protection. especially big corporations, which should definitely be considered “serving the public good” and therefore under even greater scrutiny.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoThe Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are just ways of organizing people, and those people do have free speech rights. I’m not sure how this could be changed without a constitutional amendment. Unless you have another suggestion?
- tomp 6y agoPersonally I’d try by enforcing an exchange - limited liability status for speech restrictions - that way people can still “organize in corporations” - unlimited liability ones - but if they want extra privileges, they have to give up some of their rights. If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment. Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.
- tarboreus 6y agoUse the laws on the books to make these companies public trusts, as was done to the large trusts in the 20th century. If there is real competition on these platforms, if there were many app stores, then this wouldn't be an issue. These five or six companies have too much consolidated power.
- kemitchell 6y agoCan you provide an example of a public trust from the 20th century? I'm aware of "trust busting" in an earlier time, but not nationalizations, except, predominantly, in time of war.
- 6y ago