3 ms·

If just Apple suspended them for a clearly identified infringement of codified policy and then gave them steps to correct it, I wouldn't care nearly as much as

If just Apple suspended them for a clearly identified infringement of codified policy and then gave them steps to correct it, I wouldn't care nearly as much as multiple sectors of industry banning one company within hours of each other. It's the coordination that is terrifying. When a group of powerful people says, "You have to let me do crazy thing, or the boogieman wins," you must forgive me for having doubts. I have heard that too many times to count.

lindenksv85 6y ago
It’s not coordination if multiple companies actually agree on reality. I would think it would be worse if some companies said this were fine and other didn’t - THAT would imply that someone was being treated unfairly maybe. This is just a unanimous jury, that’s all. I think it’s rather silly to say that if, for example, someone goes on tv and says they’re planning on building nuclear bombs in their closet, you believe Apple can’t suspend them until they say that exact same thing on their platform. If you are a violent threat in the real world, then you also are on all the platforms whether you reveal that there or not.
- obviouslynotme 6y ago
  The problem with your example is I don't turn off the bomb maker's electricity. I call the police. They take violent threats seriously. If you think someone is making a violent threat, that is what you do. They want to shut down non-violent speech. The police won't deal with that. As for the collusion, I might believe you if this were the first time. After all, it was such an enormous, public incident. But it is not the first time and it will not be the last time either.
ctvo 6y ago
> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Imagine there's a number of farmers in a village who all stop working and go inside when a thunderstorm is imminent. Did they all coordinate to stop working at around the same time or did they individually make a judgement of what's in their best self-interest? I think our disagreement may be that you don't believe there was a thunderstorm. You may think it was a perfectly clear day, hence their reasoning and timing are suspect, and there must have been some communication. I think there was a thunderstorm of regulatory pressure (imagine more people dying as attacks are planned on an app in the AppStore), employee pressure, reputation / brand damage that was brewing due to the actions in DC on 1/06. This tipped the calculations away from maintaining the status quo, and whatever revenue Parler may have generated (along with other factors, like outcries of bias vs. the right) was no longer enough. The case for companies further down the supply chain is even more clear: Imagine you're Twilio and are doing cost / benefit analysis on if you should continue your relationship with Parler. Outside of public outrage, employee calls for action, etc.., the other side of the equation is Parler brings in revenue. Your calculations became much simplified due to upstream actors like AWS. Parler has 0 users now and 0 revenue now after Apple, Google and Amazon's actions. Why in the world would you take the continued costs of maintaining your relationship with them in that case? There's still no coordination, only actors making the best decision as the values of underlying variables are updated.
- obviouslynotme 6y ago
  I might believe you if this were the first time I have seen something like this happen. After all, it was such an enormous, public incident. But it is not the first time and it will not be the last time either.
  - ctvo 6y ago
    Great. The burden of proof is on you to prove coordination. A parting analogy (since I'm awful at them but keep making them): A group of Spanish speakers are spread across a number of gates waiting for their flight at SFO. A person stands up and yells in Spanish they have a bomb. All the Spanish speakers simultaneously duck. Was this coordination or actors acting in their best self-interest based on privileged information they share? In whatever incident you keep referring to, that isn't this one, that also occurred (you imply there are many -- listing one should be no problem) where you suspect there was coordination across tech companies to censor, please ensure it isn't the tech companies all have similar data and drew the same conclusions.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Is it “coordination” if lots of companies have been contacted as law enforcement authorities following the connections out from the events at the Capitol and looking for assistance both in investigation and in forestalling the upcoming attacks they have said they have intelligence on being planned, and a bunch of corporate counsel have all had their attention directed to the statute on material support for terrorism at the same time and come to the same conclusion? > When a group of powerful people says, "You have to let me do crazy thing, or the boogieman wins," you must forgive me for having doubts. Sure, e.g.: crazy thing = provide support to domestic terrorists boogieman = evil corporations

lindenksv85 6y ago

It’s not coordination if multiple companies actually agree on reality. I would think it would be worse if some companies said this were fine and other didn’t - THAT would imply that someone was being treated unfairly maybe. This is just a unanimous jury, that’s all. I think it’s rather silly to say that if, for example, someone goes on tv and says they’re planning on building nuclear bombs in their closet, you believe Apple can’t suspend them until they say that exact same thing on their platform. If you are a violent threat in the real world, then you also are on all the platforms whether you reveal that there or not.

obviouslynotme 6y ago
The problem with your example is I don't turn off the bomb maker's electricity. I call the police. They take violent threats seriously. If you think someone is making a violent threat, that is what you do. They want to shut down non-violent speech. The police won't deal with that. As for the collusion, I might believe you if this were the first time. After all, it was such an enormous, public incident. But it is not the first time and it will not be the last time either.

ctvo 6y ago

> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Imagine there's a number of farmers in a village who all stop working and go inside when a thunderstorm is imminent. Did they all coordinate to stop working at around the same time or did they individually make a judgement of what's in their best self-interest? I think our disagreement may be that you don't believe there was a thunderstorm. You may think it was a perfectly clear day, hence their reasoning and timing are suspect, and there must have been some communication. I think there was a thunderstorm of regulatory pressure (imagine more people dying as attacks are planned on an app in the AppStore), employee pressure, reputation / brand damage that was brewing due to the actions in DC on 1/06. This tipped the calculations away from maintaining the status quo, and whatever revenue Parler may have generated (along with other factors, like outcries of bias vs. the right) was no longer enough. The case for companies further down the supply chain is even more clear: Imagine you're Twilio and are doing cost / benefit analysis on if you should continue your relationship with Parler. Outside of public outrage, employee calls for action, etc.., the other side of the equation is Parler brings in revenue. Your calculations became much simplified due to upstream actors like AWS. Parler has 0 users now and 0 revenue now after Apple, Google and Amazon's actions. Why in the world would you take the continued costs of maintaining your relationship with them in that case? There's still no coordination, only actors making the best decision as the values of underlying variables are updated.

obviouslynotme 6y ago
I might believe you if this were the first time I have seen something like this happen. After all, it was such an enormous, public incident. But it is not the first time and it will not be the last time either.
- ctvo 6y ago
  Great. The burden of proof is on you to prove coordination. A parting analogy (since I'm awful at them but keep making them): A group of Spanish speakers are spread across a number of gates waiting for their flight at SFO. A person stands up and yells in Spanish they have a bomb. All the Spanish speakers simultaneously duck. Was this coordination or actors acting in their best self-interest based on privileged information they share? In whatever incident you keep referring to, that isn't this one, that also occurred (you imply there are many -- listing one should be no problem) where you suspect there was coordination across tech companies to censor, please ensure it isn't the tech companies all have similar data and drew the same conclusions.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It's the coordination that is terrifying. Is it “coordination” if lots of companies have been contacted as law enforcement authorities following the connections out from the events at the Capitol and looking for assistance both in investigation and in forestalling the upcoming attacks they have said they have intelligence on being planned, and a bunch of corporate counsel have all had their attention directed to the statute on material support for terrorism at the same time and come to the same conclusion? > When a group of powerful people says, "You have to let me do crazy thing, or the boogieman wins," you must forgive me for having doubts. Sure, e.g.: crazy thing = provide support to domestic terrorists boogieman = evil corporations