4 ms·

> Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter Shows up for me: https://www.google.com/search?q=parler https://www.google.com/search?q=parler If they didn't want

by Pils 6y ago

> Google bans Parler, conservative Twitter Shows up for me: https://www.google.com/search?q=parler https://www.google.com/search?q=parler If they didn't want to get banned from the app stores, they should've at least tried to follow the TOS. There is a subreddit dedicated to cataloguing all the death threats on the app, many of which are still up today: https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?t=month https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/top/?t=month. Reddit, Facebook and Twitter have entire content moderation teams for this sorta thing. Why should there be a double standard for conservative social media sites?

zadokshi 6y ago
The discussion is not about if a 'free speech app' can have a website. The discussion is about if a 'free speech app' can have an app.
- zepto 6y ago
  Is there a difference between a ‘free speech app’ and a ‘death threat app’?
  - qeternity 6y ago
    Well for one, death threats are illegal and not protected speech under the 1A.
- mbreese 6y ago
  It’s also not even that. The discussion is if someone has to distribute a “free speech app”. The issue is a little more complex for Apple if/when they ban Parler, as you can’t (easily) side load apps on iOS. But Google only banned them from the Google Play store, thus limiting their distribution. You can still use the app, and side load to install. (I think this makes Android’s position a little more tenable here...) They still have their app and website. And you can still get to their website from a phone.
  - zadokshi 6y ago
    Yea. No one is complaining that the "Parler" website has been banned. The issue is can a competing product have a comparable offering, including a proper native application with notifications, and all of the features only allowed to be used via native API calls.
    - mbreese 6y ago
      I'm not following... what is the competing product here? Twitter? Are you saying that Google should follow the same rules for Twitter and Parler? I think that the argument here is that they are applying the same rules -- if you don't moderate the content users post, you're out of the store.

by Pils 6y ago

zadokshi 6y ago

The discussion is not about if a 'free speech app' can have a website. The discussion is about if a 'free speech app' can have an app.

zepto 6y ago
Is there a difference between a ‘free speech app’ and a ‘death threat app’?
- qeternity 6y ago
  Well for one, death threats are illegal and not protected speech under the 1A.
mbreese 6y ago
It’s also not even that. The discussion is if someone has to distribute a “free speech app”. The issue is a little more complex for Apple if/when they ban Parler, as you can’t (easily) side load apps on iOS. But Google only banned them from the Google Play store, thus limiting their distribution. You can still use the app, and side load to install. (I think this makes Android’s position a little more tenable here...) They still have their app and website. And you can still get to their website from a phone.
- zadokshi 6y ago
  Yea. No one is complaining that the "Parler" website has been banned. The issue is can a competing product have a comparable offering, including a proper native application with notifications, and all of the features only allowed to be used via native API calls.
  - mbreese 6y ago
    I'm not following... what is the competing product here? Twitter? Are you saying that Google should follow the same rules for Twitter and Parler? I think that the argument here is that they are applying the same rules -- if you don't moderate the content users post, you're out of the store.