6 ms·

The same folks who think you can't force a bakery to bake a gay cake want to force Apple to distribute an app or Twitter to publish anyone's nonsense. You can'

by danhak 6y ago

The same folks who think you can't force a bakery to bake a gay cake want to force Apple to distribute an app or Twitter to publish anyone's nonsense. You can't have it both ways. For the self-proclaimed free-marketers, how is this different? It's about scale. We have an antitrust issue, not a free speech issue.

orange_joe 6y ago
I think you're right about antitrust. Apple prevents side loading so this goes beyond them deciding not to distribute. So even if parler wanted to self distribute it can't (for iPhones at least).
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  They can't distribute a native app. They can continue to operate on Apple devices as a website or a PWA (whatever "PWA" means). Is the distinction between these two important?
  - dannyw 6y ago
    Yes. PWA != app.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      Forums existed before iPhone or the App Store.
      - dannyw 6y ago
        Yeah, but the web has less reach than the web + native apps. A judge isn’t going to (seriously) consider PWAs if Microsoft sued Apple for not allowing xCloud on iOS.
        madeofpalk 6y ago
        Right so its less about the technical merits of apps vs websites and more about whether Apple should have to promote them or not.
  - nexuist 6y ago
    PWAs are blockaded from a ton of native functionality (push notifications etc.) on iOS. They are much more level with native apps on Android, but still lack access to many native features. The distinction is important if you believe you should be able to run whatever software you want on a piece of general purpose hardware you purchase.
trident5000 6y ago
You could reverse that no? The same people who think you should force someone to bake a cake now thinks a private company should not be forced to do anything. Just playing devils advocate. By the way completely agree with you on antitrust. And its not a free speech issue.
- danhak 6y ago
  Ah, but gender (and by extension, sexual orientation according to SCOTUS) is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
  - frob 6y ago
    I belive you mean Bostock v Clayton Co, which was decided this summer and extended Title VII protections to LBGT individuals. Obergefell extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.
    - danhak 6y ago
      Yes, thank you. I edited my post.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    And the reason for this is that we now believe that gender and sexual orientation are not subject to conscious thought but are “hard coded” into a person. Whereas political affiliation (and politically motivated acts of violence) are still thought to be choices that can be freely made or changed.
    - danhak 6y ago
      I’m not sure this argument holds in general. For example, you could change your religion and it would still be illegal to discriminate on that basis.
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
rudolfwinestock 6y ago
That bakery likely has a staff of two people and a dozen competitors offering equivalent services within a few miles. On the other hand, the public square, itself, has been privatized into the hands of multi-billion-dollar corporations from whom there is no appeal. Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here].
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here]. And all that head of state needs to do is hold a press conference to be heard. He or she does not need Twitter, or Facebook, or Parler, or any other social media platform.
  - rudolfwinestock 6y ago
    Holding a press conference means that the message gets filtered through media companies with their own agendas (OAN or CNN; pick your poison). The Internet is meant to dis-intermediate communication. That is its purpose. It's one of the things that makes it such a disruptive change over legacy media platforms. The current de-platforming trend is an attempt to put that genie back in the bottle.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      So? We could start a "government information bureau" to fix that, if we wanted.
      - shard972 6y ago
        So the US gov is now going to start competing with news outlets? Are you high or just full of it?
      - rudolfwinestock 6y ago
blueplanet200 6y ago
I've heard a few references to the Masteriece Cakeshop decision in a few social medial channels I'm on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...). I think the comparison is pretty unhelpful. At stake in that case, and those on the right, was a concern of being coerced into violating one's religious beliefs because of Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The legal arguments at the time were if it violated the cake shop's 1st amendment rights of free exercise of religion. In today's context there is no anti-discrimination law for the likes of Parler, nor is there a concern that being forced to keep an app like Parler online would violate any constitutionally protected rights of these service providers should a statute ever be passed that did. Those backing the cake shop decision did largely for the free exercise of religion, not an appeal to the free market. Disclaimer: I didn't think a cake shop should be allowed to deny service because it's for a gay wedding.
bananamerica 6y ago
The difference, of course, is that, unlike Parler, a “gay cake” poses no threat whatsoever to democracy. So I’d say we can definitely have it both ways.

by danhak 6y ago

orange_joe 6y ago

I think you're right about antitrust. Apple prevents side loading so this goes beyond them deciding not to distribute. So even if parler wanted to self distribute it can't (for iPhones at least).

madeofpalk 6y ago
They can't distribute a native app. They can continue to operate on Apple devices as a website or a PWA (whatever "PWA" means). Is the distinction between these two important?
- dannyw 6y ago
  Yes. PWA != app.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Forums existed before iPhone or the App Store.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      Yeah, but the web has less reach than the web + native apps. A judge isn’t going to (seriously) consider PWAs if Microsoft sued Apple for not allowing xCloud on iOS.
      - madeofpalk 6y ago
        Right so its less about the technical merits of apps vs websites and more about whether Apple should have to promote them or not.
- nexuist 6y ago
  PWAs are blockaded from a ton of native functionality (push notifications etc.) on iOS. They are much more level with native apps on Android, but still lack access to many native features. The distinction is important if you believe you should be able to run whatever software you want on a piece of general purpose hardware you purchase.

trident5000 6y ago

You could reverse that no? The same people who think you should force someone to bake a cake now thinks a private company should not be forced to do anything. Just playing devils advocate. By the way completely agree with you on antitrust. And its not a free speech issue.

danhak 6y ago
Ah, but gender (and by extension, sexual orientation according to SCOTUS) is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Political affiliation is not a protected class.
- frob 6y ago
  I belive you mean Bostock v Clayton Co, which was decided this summer and extended Title VII protections to LBGT individuals. Obergefell extended marriage rights to same-sex couples.
  - danhak 6y ago
    Yes, thank you. I edited my post.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  And the reason for this is that we now believe that gender and sexual orientation are not subject to conscious thought but are “hard coded” into a person. Whereas political affiliation (and politically motivated acts of violence) are still thought to be choices that can be freely made or changed.
  - danhak 6y ago
    I’m not sure this argument holds in general. For example, you could change your religion and it would still be illegal to discriminate on that basis.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago

rudolfwinestock 6y ago

That bakery likely has a staff of two people and a dozen competitors offering equivalent services within a few miles. On the other hand, the public square, itself, has been privatized into the hands of multi-billion-dollar corporations from whom there is no appeal. Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here].

pmiller2 6y ago
> Nobody actually needs a cake. But a head of state needs to talk to his citizens and his citizens need to hear him, even if we think he is a [insert epithet, here]. And all that head of state needs to do is hold a press conference to be heard. He or she does not need Twitter, or Facebook, or Parler, or any other social media platform.
- rudolfwinestock 6y ago
  Holding a press conference means that the message gets filtered through media companies with their own agendas (OAN or CNN; pick your poison). The Internet is meant to dis-intermediate communication. That is its purpose. It's one of the things that makes it such a disruptive change over legacy media platforms. The current de-platforming trend is an attempt to put that genie back in the bottle.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    So? We could start a "government information bureau" to fix that, if we wanted.
    - shard972 6y ago
      So the US gov is now going to start competing with news outlets? Are you high or just full of it?
    - rudolfwinestock 6y ago

blueplanet200 6y ago

I've heard a few references to the Masteriece Cakeshop decision in a few social medial channels I'm on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...). I think the comparison is pretty unhelpful. At stake in that case, and those on the right, was a concern of being coerced into violating one's religious beliefs because of Colorado's anti-discrimination law. The legal arguments at the time were if it violated the cake shop's 1st amendment rights of free exercise of religion. In today's context there is no anti-discrimination law for the likes of Parler, nor is there a concern that being forced to keep an app like Parler online would violate any constitutionally protected rights of these service providers should a statute ever be passed that did. Those backing the cake shop decision did largely for the free exercise of religion, not an appeal to the free market. Disclaimer: I didn't think a cake shop should be allowed to deny service because it's for a gay wedding.

bananamerica 6y ago

The difference, of course, is that, unlike Parler, a “gay cake” poses no threat whatsoever to democracy. So I’d say we can definitely have it both ways.