10 ms·

Tim Cook Defends Parler App Suspension: ‘We Don’t Consider That Free Speech’

42 points by theduder99 6y ago

AnHonestComment 6y ago
It’s only “free speech” when Twitter is used to plan violent riots in Seattle for the past year. Got it. That Apple, Google, and Amazon continue to host Twitter despite its continued use in planning violence speaks to the double standard conservatives have long alleged. They treated Parler differently than Twitter purely due to partisanship. That Twitter and Facebook allow the CCP to spread messages of genocide (such as saying the CCP “emancipated the minds of Uyghur women in Xinjiang”) while silencing Donald Trump for telling his supporters to go home peacefully speaks to the actual morals of tech companies.
mc32 6y ago
Admittedly that was a lazy way to say it’s speech he vehemently disagrees with. However, it shows a nonchalant willingness to redefine what free speech is. That’s scary. No, we’re not curbing free speech because that’s not free speech. Just redefine the terms so you can do what you want.
- supernovae 6y ago
  You're argument is a lazy argument that accepts the weaponization of free speech, which is even more scary. Parler was never about free speech. If you read up on its making, it was dark money, russian bots, alt-right hate groups and their cover is this absurdly stupid front of free speech that no alt-right fascist person actually wants. They just use it against you.
  - surge 6y ago
    Your* Most of the people who are saying this never actually looked at the site, the reality is the majority of the content seen was no worse than that of Twitter, in some ways better and more politer (that's what you get with an echo chamber), but every argument leveraged against Parler could be leveraged 10x over against Twitter. So no matter what intentions are, the effect is the same. You can't in good faith argue Parler deserves to be taken down anymore than Twitter and many other sites. Twitter does not enforce many of its own rules, even when reported a lot of violent, hateful content stays up for days or weeks while very minor infractions will get enforced. So even what they do enforce is very inconsistently enforced. Given how bad Twitter is and has been over the course of its history, you can't really argue in good faith this wasn't just a pretext from eliminating a competitor to the dominance of SV big tech from the market. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...
    - vixen99 6y ago
      Seems rather obvious that this 'Big Tech bloc' will eventually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - supernovae 6y ago
      Your* entire argument actually supports what I said. Twitters goal was never to weaponize freedom of speech. You can't blame twitter for being anti-free speech when the basis for kicking off Trump was violation of TOS. It was never a freedom of speech issue to begin with. Parler on the other hand weaponizes freedom of speech does so in a very juvenile way to confuse people. The GOP runs with this too. It's how conspiracy theorists thrive - they weaponize authority in every way - be it authority because of comprehensive study, understanding and scientific evidence or authority because of governance, speech, status quo. It's pathetic really... and i have to laugh that you seem to suggest you have some pillar to stand on merely because you corrected what my iphone chose to autocorrect. lol
  - mc32 6y ago
    No. One can make the argument that there are kinds of speech that need to be restricted because of reasons x, y and z and still recognize that they are speech. His take is rather fascistic in that he just redefines what a thing is to avoid dealing with the unpleasant parts. No, it’s not a sterilization campaign, it’s family planning.
- TaupeRanger 6y ago
  I would say the only thing lazy here is your interpretation of this situation. Speech can be used to sow conspiratorial rage and foment/plan real life harm. At some point it can't be tolerated. That cutoff line is not easy to define, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't exist.
  - dx87 6y ago
    Nothing you said is relevant to what they're talking about. This is about Apple trying to redefine commonly used words to avoid any discussions about limiting free speech. It's like when Verizon claimed that "Unlimited" is just a marketing term, and doesn't actually mean no limit.
- jsgo 6y ago
  Not going to go into free speech = government because I think that point has been beaten to death. Was there speech on Parler that was above board in the sense that it wasn’t people up to no good? I’m sure there was. It’s unrealistic to think that everyone there was advocating for a violent act to happen. Unfortunately, Apple and Amazon (Amazon documenting cases of threatened murder, rape, etc. that Parler wouldn’t remove) allegedly had been requesting that Parler clean up the more extreme content which allegedly they refused to/didn’t do. To Apple, that’s probably no different than an application being riddled in bugs and as such they don’t want it on their app store.
- l8rpeace 6y ago
  Apple has a private platform. Apple can do what it wants, whether they use the typical definition of free speech or they redefine terms. The bigger problem is that there are no public platforms despite this technology. And I don't know if governments have ever given citizens more than rights (like, do they have these rights and a platform to express those rights).
  - qwerty12345678 6y ago
    So if your private water utility company decides to cut off your water access because they don't agree with your politics, would you say "welp, they're a private company and they can do as they please."? Cutting communication channels is historically an act of war.
    - l8rpeace 6y ago
      The private water utility company is a false equivocation. Government regulations view this as a natural resource and regulate it heavily. Privatization of natural resources often raises the specter or threat of cut-off as you suggest and is traditionally subject to government intervention. I believe you are right - cutting communication channels of a sovereign state can be an act of war. But these are private channels. I don't think we are anywhere near classifying these platforms as public utilities, much less natural resources, at least in the United States.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Corporations don't have to protect first amendment rights of others, they actually have them in the US. The Supreme Court has granted corporations in the US at least a partial right to free speech and political speech in special. Even against protected minorities (Gay wedding cake decision). Maybe Tim Cook could say that Apple is using it's free speech rights as a corporation when denying service.
  - mc32 6y ago
    You’re going on a tangent. He’s saying it’s not a speech issue because what he banned is not considered speech, so it does not fit under that umbrella and thus irrelevant to discuss a a speech issue at all.
    - nabla9 6y ago
      I think Tim Cook is sidestepping for PR purposes. We should not discuss the issue in his terms. The question is not if this particular speech is protected or not, because it does not apply to Apple at all. The only question is if Apple has right. It has.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Every private platform has some standards, this is hardly anything new. Do you think Blizzard banning WoW idiots yelling racial slurs is abrogating their right to free speech too?
  - dx87 6y ago
    It is, but that's not the point. Blizzard isn't trying to redefine free speech, Apple is.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      Seriously? So Blizzard getting rid of someone yelling "n----- n----- n-----" nonstop in general chat, you really think that's violating your right to free speech? Lemme guess, dang banning trolls here on HN is also a violation of free speech, and he should let people say whatever they want, whenever they want? You realize how insane this stance sounds, right?
      - Frondo 6y ago
        To the free speech absolutist, everything should be allowed everywhere. To someone like me, private corporations can kick people off their services at their pleasure -- and if that did become a problem (but not before), I'd suggest regulating them or building a public alternative. To someone like me, you also can't make false medical claims or falsely advertise your services or falsely label food. To someone further away from free speech absolutism, private companies should have a department of censorship that responds to the government, the zeitgeist, whatever. To someone like me, though, there's a lot of knobs and dials to turn on the "what amount of speech lets people thrive and not die" machine and I'm content to have society keep fiddling with them in various ways, as a process and not an end-point.
      - qwerty12345678 6y ago
        Technically, it IS violating free speech when anything is censored. That doesn't mean that particular speech is condoned. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, you just don't want to understand it. Apple isn't simply moderating misc examples of speech they don't condone, they're attempting to install your (incorrect) version of what free speech means. This is some serious 1984 stuff in action, and a lot of smart people are too ignorant to see what's happening in front of their eyes.
sanxiyn 6y ago
I mean, why go there? App Store is Apple's playground where Apple can and do enforce arbitrary rules. Of course Apple can suspend Parler, they don't need any reason whatsoever. It shows how bad Apple is, not how bad Parler is.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Suspending a social media app for having shit moderation is bad now? Jesus, people.
harshreality 6y ago
I doubt he knows what incitement to violence means[1], or can point to an example on parler. One of Apple's laywers probably told him to say that. But let's assume he does know and can point to some instances there. Does he know there's incitement to violence elsewhere on the internet? Time for iOS and macOS to whitelist certain trustworthy ip blocks belonging to "reputable" internet companies which police content, and prevent apps from connecting anywhere else. For our safety. Please save us, Tim! [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speec...
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  They asked them to moderate their forum and suspended them until the situation changed.
gjsman-1000 6y ago
Ok... but we know, for a fact now, that most of the Capitol Riots were planned on Facebook. Where is their slap on the wrist? And, frankly, you can find truly awful stuff on Twitter without much searching. "Hang Mike Pence" was trending, for example. Twitter removed it from trending, but didn't delete tweets containing that phrase. Will AWS take them down for this? Rules for thee but not for me.
- enkid 6y ago
  Hang Mike Pence was trending because a video came out showing people chanting it during the riots. People then quoted the video saying it was a bad thing, which made the trending algorithm trip. It was not people for hanging Mike Pence, it was people surprised that actually happened.
  - gjsman-1000 6y ago
    Perhaps, but this would not be the first incident. Also, I guarantee you that you could have found plenty of people on Twitter agreeing. Not to mention, (just trying to find an example), how many threats against Trump or his family have you seen on Twitter? And lastly, you didn't address my Facebook point. It is factual knowledge now that most of the people attending the riots at the Capitol were organized on Facebook, not Parler. Why did Parler get the blame? Where's Facebook's punishment?
  - surge 6y ago
    That video was on Twitter too, and YouTube. What's your point?
    - enkid 6y ago
      My point is that the parent post was talking like people were advocating violence against Mike Pence and that's why it was trending, but that's not true.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    How about ... https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillAllMen&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillAllMen&src=typed_query
oarsinsync 6y ago
For some more context about how Parler might not actually be free speech: "the lack of moderation on Parler is not the issue. they actually have very robust moderation tools and all new users start out shadowbanned until enough of their post get approved for rightthink by their user moderators" [0] "This is not an ad network. This is a system where their most "influential" users can get paid to post organic-looking sponsored content. Their CEO talks about it here" [1] [0] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 [1] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136 https://cnbc.com/2020/07/02/how-parler-app-plans-to-make-money.html https://cnbc.com/2020/07/02/how-parler-app-plans-to-make-mon... EDIT: Updated the first tweet to include the full tweet. If Parler actually has robust and capable moderation tools, as documented by the person who led the effort to archive their entire site before it went down, it's worth noting Amazon's position as stated in the article: “Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (‘AWS’) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.” [2] [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_4.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...
- seebetter 6y ago
  Not sure what this means but Tim must had not been on Twitter last year. There was a moment that went on for 4+ months of wild endless violence against federal agents. We live in a conspiracy theory with neoliberal corporate racketeers proclaiming they’re saving us from the ill affects of their own corporate communication platforms for not the public but for woke leftists that vote for Democratic party establishment figures. Not Bernie, that guy’s a socialist and a threat to my 401k.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Also, IIRC there was an interview where the CEO talked about how he was banning "left wing trolls"[1], not to mention they obviously don't allow pornographic images (which are not, in the large, illegal). Parler is about free speech the same way Fox News is fair and balanced. They say that because that's what their target demographic wants to hear, not because there's any truth to the statement. [1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-founder-explains-why-he-built-trumps-new-favorite-social-media-app/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...
vimy 6y ago
It used to be that free speech was an ideal to strive for and not just a law companies could hide behind as private entities; the argument that the first amendement only applies to the government. Up until 2016 Silicon Valley was full of libertarians fully believing in free speech principles. The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. It seems things have changed. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...
- notatrumper 6y ago
  Yes, things have changed, unfortunately.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  The extent to which commenters don't understand the principle of free speech is truly shocking here. > The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. Gee, I wonder what the difference is between this and Apple banning an app on their own store? Truly, it is a stupefying mystery.
  - vimy 6y ago
    I'm talking about free speech in general. Will the ACLU today defend Trump supporters? No, they won't. But they used to defend _actual_ nazis. Similarly, Apple would have never banned this app 10 years ago.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      > I'm talking about free speech in general. No, you're not. > they used to defend _actual_ nazis On public streets. Are Trump supporters fighting for their right to peacefully march on public streets now?
      - vimy 6y ago
        I _am_ talking about free speech in general. There has been in shift in how mainstream media and politicians (and companies) view free speech. Some newspapers and politicians are even calling for the abolishment of the first first amendment. Unimaginable 10 years ago. Case in point: >The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...
bserge 6y ago
I'm thinking all of these bans on the major platforms are simply a result of risk mitigation rather than deliberate stifling of free speech (although it has become evident that the platforms hold too much power over it). The attack on the US Capitol sent the big wigs into panic - nobody wants to be linked to something like that. The easiest solution is to completely ban, deny service and deny affiliation with anyone involved. Much lower risk of the US government blaming them for enabling people to do what they did. I don't think anyone high up in these companies gives a rat's ass about freedom of speech, incitement to violence or hate online, every platform was (and still is) full of that. Up until this incident they maintained the usual "we're a neutral platform" spiel, sometimes banning people who were too aggressive, trolling or being reported a lot by others. But now that "shit got real", they're covering their asses.
- mstade 6y ago
  This is mostly my assessment also, and I don’t think it would’ve happened as fast or as (seemingly) lightly if it happened at some point during the Trump term before the election. Possibly it wouldn’t have happened at all for fear of costly reprisals from the administration. My personal opinion is: good riddance. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in the paradox of tolerance and that something’s gotta give. While I do believe in free speech, I don’t believe that’s the same thing as everyone having a right to be listened to, or having the right to a megaphone. I have no answers to any of the problems that come with moderating forums, I think it’s a hard (impossible perhaps?) problem to solve. But I’m also glad that hard as it may be, the places online that are worth hanging out seem to be doing a mostly pretty good job of it. (Thank you dang! <3)
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Executives don't want to be blamed for bad shit. That's obviously priority #1. They also don't want to actually have been responsible for bad shit. They're still human, and have human interests. (This is the point where someone jumps in to loudly point out every bad thing Google/Apple/FB/etc has ever done)
sdoering 6y ago
As I have said in other, similar discussions, there are a lot of different (forms of) freedoms. There is no absolute freedom and deciding what form of freedom to rank higher than another is a value judgement. Collective freedoms intrude on individual freedoms (and vice versa). So if a society decides, that (absolut) free speech is the most important value, it also says, that everybody must endure everything another person does say about them. Taken to the extrem every form of lie, verbal abuse, and so on is ok. So you can either have (absolut) free speech. Or you can have some forms of things that are not allowed to say (at least not without potentially facing consequences). As these are value calls/judgments this will always be a topic of debate. And that is good. Because in the end every generation, every society and every group needs to define what is the major consensus. What is allowed and what is not. What are the value hierarchies. In the USA, for example, it is perfectly legal to deny the Holocaust. In Germany, this is a punishable offense. If Apple, as a private company, now determines what is permissible speech within their ecosystem and what no longer falls under free speech, then that is their right. Just as it is then the customers' right to no longer buy the company's products. The question could be, at what point is a company perhaps more than a purely private company and more arrived at the status of infrastructure. And should different rules then apply? Is it permissible to dictate to Apple, for example, that they are not allowed to make such deletions. Should we (be allowed to) intervene so far in private-sector freedom as a company? And should the USA then be allowed to intervene differently than China, for example?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  A much simpler and elegant solution compared to mandating changes for Apple's app store policies, is simply requiring them to allow users to install apps from other sources (e.g. directly from webpages, or from other app stores). You could do this on the basis that the real problem isn't that Apple has some particular policy for their store, but rather the problem is that their store is a monopoly within the iOS ecosystem. And the government has a history of intervening when it comes to monopolies (at least some of the time), so it matches precedent.
  - sdoering 6y ago
aphextron 6y ago
>"Asked by Wallace whether Apple’s booting of Parler would only serve to drive the app’s users “underground,”" I hope it does. They can rediscover that the internet at its' core has no rules and is open to anyone willing to put in the technical effort. There's nothing stopping them from building their own platform from the ground up. However, that requires a modicum of technical skill, which by the looks of every "Parler-like" community that has been stood up, is non-existent among these people. Similar to things like ISIL, these type of people are great at taking over existing infrastructure and crowding out voices of reason, however left to their own devices, they crumble due to total technical incompetency.
- notatrumper 6y ago
  How does skill help you get connected to the internet, if nobody is willing to connect you?
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >How does skill help you get connected to the internet, if nobody is willing to connect you? It would be trivial for a group of competent engineers to set up their own physical infrastructure across multiple redundant internationally based ISPs if they had such people willing to work on this. There was a recent article about the Pirate Bay's founder chiding them for an inability to stay online [0]. If you want to fight the system, you're either gonna need to know how to do it or you're out of luck. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-th...
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  The so called community may not have the skills, however there are plenty of people,who can see an opportunity in such a crowd, and they do have money,skills,and resources.Also, it's very dangerous to underestimate a motivated fool.
  - aphextron 6y ago
seebetter 6y ago
And I consider iMessages and the philosophical design limits of Apple as gross, creepy, anti-utilitarian and predatory. iMessages should be open platform. Apple won’t exist in 20 years because even current technology implemented in a better system would displace all telecoms and all social media companies within 18 months. Prediction: 2025 end of the Valley
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  Except you are locked out of the stock market you cannot have an IPO like the big firms all did start up and, oh, you want to compete with facebook? ABC news reports that you cant because they are backed by the CIA.
notatrumper 6y ago
I suppose I could rationalize my continued use of Apple products and even stock ownership with the TOS argument: people voluntarily decide to use Apple products and accept their ToS, and henceforth they are not living in "free speech land", but in "Apple ToS land". So it's just Apple kicking an app for violating the ToS. Nothing to see here. Only the timing seemed rather odd. And of course if I want to use that rationalization, I also have to accept that I live in "Apple ToS land", which I actually do. Edit: I wonder if apps will start to have vendor specific moderation. Instead of deleting messages, they could just be flagged with "deleted on iOS" or "deleted in China"? I suppose with the China example, they already do that? Certainly news sites already do that, I get "this content is not available in the EU" a lot.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  I don't understand why "rationalization" is necessary. Of course any app store platform is going to have some minimum standards, it's both right and sensible that they be allowed to have such. You can disagree with some of Apple's policies (I think their policy on emulators is dumb), but to me the solution would just be to allow other app stores so consumers can choose.
eplanit 6y ago
When I used to be a Democrat, "Question Authority" was a popular slogan, and was on a lot of bumper stickers. Now, the left and Democrats embrace authoritarianism, and want to limit speech, and create authoritarian technology to pervasively enforce it. Sad for us, this thinking is now in a (bare) majority.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  The extent to which conservatives now believe this utter nonsense is pretty crazy. For decades they've talked up how businesses should be able to decide whatever they want for their business. Their business, their rules. Now when it goes against them, suddenly private businesses making decisions for their own platforms is now "authoritarianism". Funny how people getting mysteriously fired when bringing up unions with colleagues wasn't authoritarianism. Getting fired from your job because you're gay? Also not authoritarianism, obviously.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    Or put another way, why is it okay that baker can refuse to bake the cake for a gay wedding, but Apple must be compelled to work with Parler?
gjsman-1000 6y ago
Next stop for Apple: Block Twitter. You can find a violent threat against anybody and the place is just a cesspool of hate.
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  block terrorist sites like wikileaks
gjsman-1000 6y ago
You know Tim that every argument against Parler can also be applied to Twitter, right?
qwerty12345678 6y ago
This is absurd and infuriating that people are sheepishly agreeing with a mega-corporation as they literally attempt to change the definition of something in front of our eyes. Has no-one read 1984? All based around selectively curated emotional political topics. Do you really think the gun won't be turned on you as soon as it suits them? Time to tear the entire fucking system down and redistribute power.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
The number of commenters here who apparently believe "free speech means businesses have to let me say whatever I want inside their business" is both sad and disappointing.
siruncledrew 6y ago
After reading a bunch of back-and-forth debate on HN about this free speech vs. private speech saga, what still confuses me is the role of corporations in this. Some responses say “corporations don’t legally have to protect speech” others say “corporations are people so this is 1st amendment”. What I gather is that corporations are in this nebulous legal chasm of technically-a-person while also not-a-person? So corporations can be a person at times (ex. political contributions) while not at other times (ex. limited liability)? I admit my ignorance of not knowing how corporate law works. Maybe someone can explain.
db48x 6y ago
I'm so glad that our free speech is whatever Tim Cook decides it is.
eplanit 6y ago
The mobile world has trained users to think that they should only be able to run sanctioned software approved by the device maker -- so much for the personal computer era. Now, people pay a higher price but they have less control over their devices than ever before. Why is Apple even involved here? If people want a nasty app on their phone, then they should be able to have it. This idea of the vendor dictating terms (and taking profits) has now become normalized. I see no real fight against it, so far, which is sad. Personally, I install hardly any apps (literally only 3) for my phone. Tim Cook is free to have his opinion, but his company should play no role in suppressing others' opinions. He should not have to host an app he hates, but he should not dictate that to all his customers. Who elected him?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > Why is Apple even involved here? If people want a nasty app on their phone, then they should be able to have it. Exactly. The real problem isn't that Apple has some policy about moderation for their app store -- it's their app store, some amount of curation is completely necessary, that they have policies to that end is completely fine. That's how stores work. The real problem is that people don't have a choice to use any other app store, or independently install an app some other way (e.g. directly downloading it from a webpage or transferring it over a USB cable). In Androidland, once Parler is back up on some web host, it will be technically possible to get their apk from somewhere else and install it, if you want it. Just like I can get NewPipe somewhere other than Google's app store.
- nbzso 6y ago
  If you check my comments you will find similar reactions. But recently I have revisioned my view on Big Tech. Big Tech has money and budgets of a small countries. They obviously are part of political spectrum and will be the gateway and control outlet for 4th Industrial Revolution. I highly recommend everyone to read this:"A Framework for Developing a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy" - WEF link - (https://tinyurl.com/y6lwfdcy https://tinyurl.com/y6lwfdcy). They are using current political stage to test and establish (normalise) the idea of censoring in the name of security, privacy and common good.
RickJWagner 6y ago
Leftist Alec Baldwin is Tweeting today about a dream where Donald Trump is tried, a noose awaits him. Is that violent enough? What's out of bounds and what's not?
IdontRememberIt 6y ago
Will Tim Cook kick out Twitter because we can read daily homophobic, racist, hate, etc. messages on that app?

42 points by theduder99 6y ago

It’s only “free speech” when Twitter is used to plan violent riots in Seattle for the past year. Got it. That Apple, Google, and Amazon continue to host Twitter despite its continued use in planning violence speaks to the double standard conservatives have long alleged. They treated Parler differently than Twitter purely due to partisanship. That Twitter and Facebook allow the CCP to spread messages of genocide (such as saying the CCP “emancipated the minds of Uyghur women in Xinjiang”) while silencing Donald Trump for telling his supporters to go home peacefully speaks to the actual morals of tech companies.

mc32 6y ago

Admittedly that was a lazy way to say it’s speech he vehemently disagrees with. However, it shows a nonchalant willingness to redefine what free speech is. That’s scary. No, we’re not curbing free speech because that’s not free speech. Just redefine the terms so you can do what you want.

supernovae 6y ago
You're argument is a lazy argument that accepts the weaponization of free speech, which is even more scary. Parler was never about free speech. If you read up on its making, it was dark money, russian bots, alt-right hate groups and their cover is this absurdly stupid front of free speech that no alt-right fascist person actually wants. They just use it against you.
- surge 6y ago
  Your* Most of the people who are saying this never actually looked at the site, the reality is the majority of the content seen was no worse than that of Twitter, in some ways better and more politer (that's what you get with an echo chamber), but every argument leveraged against Parler could be leveraged 10x over against Twitter. So no matter what intentions are, the effect is the same. You can't in good faith argue Parler deserves to be taken down anymore than Twitter and many other sites. Twitter does not enforce many of its own rules, even when reported a lot of violent, hateful content stays up for days or weeks while very minor infractions will get enforced. So even what they do enforce is very inconsistently enforced. Given how bad Twitter is and has been over the course of its history, you can't really argue in good faith this wasn't just a pretext from eliminating a competitor to the dominance of SV big tech from the market. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...
  - vixen99 6y ago
    Seems rather obvious that this 'Big Tech bloc' will eventually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - supernovae 6y ago
    Your* entire argument actually supports what I said. Twitters goal was never to weaponize freedom of speech. You can't blame twitter for being anti-free speech when the basis for kicking off Trump was violation of TOS. It was never a freedom of speech issue to begin with. Parler on the other hand weaponizes freedom of speech does so in a very juvenile way to confuse people. The GOP runs with this too. It's how conspiracy theorists thrive - they weaponize authority in every way - be it authority because of comprehensive study, understanding and scientific evidence or authority because of governance, speech, status quo. It's pathetic really... and i have to laugh that you seem to suggest you have some pillar to stand on merely because you corrected what my iphone chose to autocorrect. lol
- mc32 6y ago
  No. One can make the argument that there are kinds of speech that need to be restricted because of reasons x, y and z and still recognize that they are speech. His take is rather fascistic in that he just redefines what a thing is to avoid dealing with the unpleasant parts. No, it’s not a sterilization campaign, it’s family planning.
TaupeRanger 6y ago
I would say the only thing lazy here is your interpretation of this situation. Speech can be used to sow conspiratorial rage and foment/plan real life harm. At some point it can't be tolerated. That cutoff line is not easy to define, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't exist.
- dx87 6y ago
  Nothing you said is relevant to what they're talking about. This is about Apple trying to redefine commonly used words to avoid any discussions about limiting free speech. It's like when Verizon claimed that "Unlimited" is just a marketing term, and doesn't actually mean no limit.
jsgo 6y ago
Not going to go into free speech = government because I think that point has been beaten to death. Was there speech on Parler that was above board in the sense that it wasn’t people up to no good? I’m sure there was. It’s unrealistic to think that everyone there was advocating for a violent act to happen. Unfortunately, Apple and Amazon (Amazon documenting cases of threatened murder, rape, etc. that Parler wouldn’t remove) allegedly had been requesting that Parler clean up the more extreme content which allegedly they refused to/didn’t do. To Apple, that’s probably no different than an application being riddled in bugs and as such they don’t want it on their app store.
l8rpeace 6y ago
Apple has a private platform. Apple can do what it wants, whether they use the typical definition of free speech or they redefine terms. The bigger problem is that there are no public platforms despite this technology. And I don't know if governments have ever given citizens more than rights (like, do they have these rights and a platform to express those rights).
- qwerty12345678 6y ago
  So if your private water utility company decides to cut off your water access because they don't agree with your politics, would you say "welp, they're a private company and they can do as they please."? Cutting communication channels is historically an act of war.
  - l8rpeace 6y ago
    The private water utility company is a false equivocation. Government regulations view this as a natural resource and regulate it heavily. Privatization of natural resources often raises the specter or threat of cut-off as you suggest and is traditionally subject to government intervention. I believe you are right - cutting communication channels of a sovereign state can be an act of war. But these are private channels. I don't think we are anywhere near classifying these platforms as public utilities, much less natural resources, at least in the United States.
nabla9 6y ago
Corporations don't have to protect first amendment rights of others, they actually have them in the US. The Supreme Court has granted corporations in the US at least a partial right to free speech and political speech in special. Even against protected minorities (Gay wedding cake decision). Maybe Tim Cook could say that Apple is using it's free speech rights as a corporation when denying service.
- mc32 6y ago
  You’re going on a tangent. He’s saying it’s not a speech issue because what he banned is not considered speech, so it does not fit under that umbrella and thus irrelevant to discuss a a speech issue at all.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    I think Tim Cook is sidestepping for PR purposes. We should not discuss the issue in his terms. The question is not if this particular speech is protected or not, because it does not apply to Apple at all. The only question is if Apple has right. It has.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
Every private platform has some standards, this is hardly anything new. Do you think Blizzard banning WoW idiots yelling racial slurs is abrogating their right to free speech too?
- dx87 6y ago
  It is, but that's not the point. Blizzard isn't trying to redefine free speech, Apple is.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Seriously? So Blizzard getting rid of someone yelling "n----- n----- n-----" nonstop in general chat, you really think that's violating your right to free speech? Lemme guess, dang banning trolls here on HN is also a violation of free speech, and he should let people say whatever they want, whenever they want? You realize how insane this stance sounds, right?
    - Frondo 6y ago
      To the free speech absolutist, everything should be allowed everywhere. To someone like me, private corporations can kick people off their services at their pleasure -- and if that did become a problem (but not before), I'd suggest regulating them or building a public alternative. To someone like me, you also can't make false medical claims or falsely advertise your services or falsely label food. To someone further away from free speech absolutism, private companies should have a department of censorship that responds to the government, the zeitgeist, whatever. To someone like me, though, there's a lot of knobs and dials to turn on the "what amount of speech lets people thrive and not die" machine and I'm content to have society keep fiddling with them in various ways, as a process and not an end-point.
    - qwerty12345678 6y ago
      Technically, it IS violating free speech when anything is censored. That doesn't mean that particular speech is condoned. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, you just don't want to understand it. Apple isn't simply moderating misc examples of speech they don't condone, they're attempting to install your (incorrect) version of what free speech means. This is some serious 1984 stuff in action, and a lot of smart people are too ignorant to see what's happening in front of their eyes.

sanxiyn 6y ago

I mean, why go there? App Store is Apple's playground where Apple can and do enforce arbitrary rules. Of course Apple can suspend Parler, they don't need any reason whatsoever. It shows how bad Apple is, not how bad Parler is.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
Suspending a social media app for having shit moderation is bad now? Jesus, people.

harshreality 6y ago

I doubt he knows what incitement to violence means[1], or can point to an example on parler. One of Apple's laywers probably told him to say that. But let's assume he does know and can point to some instances there. Does he know there's incitement to violence elsewhere on the internet? Time for iOS and macOS to whitelist certain trustworthy ip blocks belonging to "reputable" internet companies which police content, and prevent apps from connecting anywhere else. For our safety. Please save us, Tim! [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speech-cliches-media-should-stop-using/596506/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speec...

PartiallyTyped 6y ago
They asked them to moderate their forum and suspended them until the situation changed.

gjsman-1000 6y ago

Ok... but we know, for a fact now, that most of the Capitol Riots were planned on Facebook. Where is their slap on the wrist? And, frankly, you can find truly awful stuff on Twitter without much searching. "Hang Mike Pence" was trending, for example. Twitter removed it from trending, but didn't delete tweets containing that phrase. Will AWS take them down for this? Rules for thee but not for me.

enkid 6y ago
Hang Mike Pence was trending because a video came out showing people chanting it during the riots. People then quoted the video saying it was a bad thing, which made the trending algorithm trip. It was not people for hanging Mike Pence, it was people surprised that actually happened.
- gjsman-1000 6y ago
  Perhaps, but this would not be the first incident. Also, I guarantee you that you could have found plenty of people on Twitter agreeing. Not to mention, (just trying to find an example), how many threats against Trump or his family have you seen on Twitter? And lastly, you didn't address my Facebook point. It is factual knowledge now that most of the people attending the riots at the Capitol were organized on Facebook, not Parler. Why did Parler get the blame? Where's Facebook's punishment?
- surge 6y ago
  That video was on Twitter too, and YouTube. What's your point?
  - enkid 6y ago
    My point is that the parent post was talking like people were advocating violence against Mike Pence and that's why it was trending, but that's not true.
- thu2111 6y ago
  How about ... https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillAllMen&src=typed_query https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillAllMen&src=typed_query

oarsinsync 6y ago

For some more context about how Parler might not actually be free speech: "the lack of moderation on Parler is not the issue. they actually have very robust moderation tools and all new users start out shadowbanned until enough of their post get approved for rightthink by their user moderators" [0] "This is not an ad network. This is a system where their most "influential" users can get paid to post organic-looking sponsored content. Their CEO talks about it here" [1] [0] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1347939939120533506 [1] https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136 https://twitter.com/donk_enby/status/1346565749977051136 https://cnbc.com/2020/07/02/how-parler-app-plans-to-make-money.html https://cnbc.com/2020/07/02/how-parler-app-plans-to-make-mon... EDIT: Updated the first tweet to include the full tweet. If Parler actually has robust and capable moderation tools, as documented by the person who led the effort to archive their entire site before it went down, it's worth noting Amazon's position as stated in the article: “Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (‘AWS’) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.” [2] [2] https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.10.0_4.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664...

seebetter 6y ago
Not sure what this means but Tim must had not been on Twitter last year. There was a moment that went on for 4+ months of wild endless violence against federal agents. We live in a conspiracy theory with neoliberal corporate racketeers proclaiming they’re saving us from the ill affects of their own corporate communication platforms for not the public but for woke leftists that vote for Democratic party establishment figures. Not Bernie, that guy’s a socialist and a threat to my 401k.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
Also, IIRC there was an interview where the CEO talked about how he was banning "left wing trolls"[1], not to mention they obviously don't allow pornographic images (which are not, in the large, illegal). Parler is about free speech the same way Fox News is fair and balanced. They say that because that's what their target demographic wants to hear, not because there's any truth to the statement. [1] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-founder-explains-why-he-built-trumps-new-favorite-social-media-app/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/06/27/parlers-f...

vimy 6y ago

It used to be that free speech was an ideal to strive for and not just a law companies could hide behind as private entities; the argument that the first amendement only applies to the government. Up until 2016 Silicon Valley was full of libertarians fully believing in free speech principles. The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. It seems things have changed. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-sp...

notatrumper 6y ago
Yes, things have changed, unfortunately.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
The extent to which commenters don't understand the principle of free speech is truly shocking here. > The ACLU even defended the right of nazis to march through the streets. Gee, I wonder what the difference is between this and Apple banning an app on their own store? Truly, it is a stupefying mystery.
- vimy 6y ago
  I'm talking about free speech in general. Will the ACLU today defend Trump supporters? No, they won't. But they used to defend _actual_ nazis. Similarly, Apple would have never banned this app 10 years ago.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > I'm talking about free speech in general. No, you're not. > they used to defend _actual_ nazis On public streets. Are Trump supporters fighting for their right to peacefully march on public streets now?
    - vimy 6y ago
      I _am_ talking about free speech in general. There has been in shift in how mainstream media and politicians (and companies) view free speech. Some newspapers and politicians are even calling for the abolishment of the first first amendment. Unimaginable 10 years ago. Case in point: >The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-expression-1529533065 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...

bserge 6y ago

I'm thinking all of these bans on the major platforms are simply a result of risk mitigation rather than deliberate stifling of free speech (although it has become evident that the platforms hold too much power over it). The attack on the US Capitol sent the big wigs into panic - nobody wants to be linked to something like that. The easiest solution is to completely ban, deny service and deny affiliation with anyone involved. Much lower risk of the US government blaming them for enabling people to do what they did. I don't think anyone high up in these companies gives a rat's ass about freedom of speech, incitement to violence or hate online, every platform was (and still is) full of that. Up until this incident they maintained the usual "we're a neutral platform" spiel, sometimes banning people who were too aggressive, trolling or being reported a lot by others. But now that "shit got real", they're covering their asses.

mstade 6y ago
This is mostly my assessment also, and I don’t think it would’ve happened as fast or as (seemingly) lightly if it happened at some point during the Trump term before the election. Possibly it wouldn’t have happened at all for fear of costly reprisals from the administration. My personal opinion is: good riddance. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in the paradox of tolerance and that something’s gotta give. While I do believe in free speech, I don’t believe that’s the same thing as everyone having a right to be listened to, or having the right to a megaphone. I have no answers to any of the problems that come with moderating forums, I think it’s a hard (impossible perhaps?) problem to solve. But I’m also glad that hard as it may be, the places online that are worth hanging out seem to be doing a mostly pretty good job of it. (Thank you dang! <3)
TulliusCicero 6y ago
Executives don't want to be blamed for bad shit. That's obviously priority #1. They also don't want to actually have been responsible for bad shit. They're still human, and have human interests. (This is the point where someone jumps in to loudly point out every bad thing Google/Apple/FB/etc has ever done)

sdoering 6y ago

As I have said in other, similar discussions, there are a lot of different (forms of) freedoms. There is no absolute freedom and deciding what form of freedom to rank higher than another is a value judgement. Collective freedoms intrude on individual freedoms (and vice versa). So if a society decides, that (absolut) free speech is the most important value, it also says, that everybody must endure everything another person does say about them. Taken to the extrem every form of lie, verbal abuse, and so on is ok. So you can either have (absolut) free speech. Or you can have some forms of things that are not allowed to say (at least not without potentially facing consequences). As these are value calls/judgments this will always be a topic of debate. And that is good. Because in the end every generation, every society and every group needs to define what is the major consensus. What is allowed and what is not. What are the value hierarchies. In the USA, for example, it is perfectly legal to deny the Holocaust. In Germany, this is a punishable offense. If Apple, as a private company, now determines what is permissible speech within their ecosystem and what no longer falls under free speech, then that is their right. Just as it is then the customers' right to no longer buy the company's products. The question could be, at what point is a company perhaps more than a purely private company and more arrived at the status of infrastructure. And should different rules then apply? Is it permissible to dictate to Apple, for example, that they are not allowed to make such deletions. Should we (be allowed to) intervene so far in private-sector freedom as a company? And should the USA then be allowed to intervene differently than China, for example?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
A much simpler and elegant solution compared to mandating changes for Apple's app store policies, is simply requiring them to allow users to install apps from other sources (e.g. directly from webpages, or from other app stores). You could do this on the basis that the real problem isn't that Apple has some particular policy for their store, but rather the problem is that their store is a monopoly within the iOS ecosystem. And the government has a history of intervening when it comes to monopolies (at least some of the time), so it matches precedent.
- sdoering 6y ago

aphextron 6y ago

>"Asked by Wallace whether Apple’s booting of Parler would only serve to drive the app’s users “underground,”" I hope it does. They can rediscover that the internet at its' core has no rules and is open to anyone willing to put in the technical effort. There's nothing stopping them from building their own platform from the ground up. However, that requires a modicum of technical skill, which by the looks of every "Parler-like" community that has been stood up, is non-existent among these people. Similar to things like ISIL, these type of people are great at taking over existing infrastructure and crowding out voices of reason, however left to their own devices, they crumble due to total technical incompetency.

notatrumper 6y ago
How does skill help you get connected to the internet, if nobody is willing to connect you?
- aphextron 6y ago
  >How does skill help you get connected to the internet, if nobody is willing to connect you? It would be trivial for a group of competent engineers to set up their own physical infrastructure across multiple redundant internationally based ISPs if they had such people willing to work on this. There was a recent article about the Pirate Bay's founder chiding them for an inability to stay online [0]. If you want to fight the system, you're either gonna need to know how to do it or you're out of luck. [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-th...
cosmodisk 6y ago
The so called community may not have the skills, however there are plenty of people,who can see an opportunity in such a crowd, and they do have money,skills,and resources.Also, it's very dangerous to underestimate a motivated fool.
- aphextron 6y ago

seebetter 6y ago

And I consider iMessages and the philosophical design limits of Apple as gross, creepy, anti-utilitarian and predatory. iMessages should be open platform. Apple won’t exist in 20 years because even current technology implemented in a better system would displace all telecoms and all social media companies within 18 months. Prediction: 2025 end of the Valley

dr-detroit 6y ago
Except you are locked out of the stock market you cannot have an IPO like the big firms all did start up and, oh, you want to compete with facebook? ABC news reports that you cant because they are backed by the CIA.

notatrumper 6y ago

I suppose I could rationalize my continued use of Apple products and even stock ownership with the TOS argument: people voluntarily decide to use Apple products and accept their ToS, and henceforth they are not living in "free speech land", but in "Apple ToS land". So it's just Apple kicking an app for violating the ToS. Nothing to see here. Only the timing seemed rather odd. And of course if I want to use that rationalization, I also have to accept that I live in "Apple ToS land", which I actually do. Edit: I wonder if apps will start to have vendor specific moderation. Instead of deleting messages, they could just be flagged with "deleted on iOS" or "deleted in China"? I suppose with the China example, they already do that? Certainly news sites already do that, I get "this content is not available in the EU" a lot.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
I don't understand why "rationalization" is necessary. Of course any app store platform is going to have some minimum standards, it's both right and sensible that they be allowed to have such. You can disagree with some of Apple's policies (I think their policy on emulators is dumb), but to me the solution would just be to allow other app stores so consumers can choose.

eplanit 6y ago

When I used to be a Democrat, "Question Authority" was a popular slogan, and was on a lot of bumper stickers. Now, the left and Democrats embrace authoritarianism, and want to limit speech, and create authoritarian technology to pervasively enforce it. Sad for us, this thinking is now in a (bare) majority.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
The extent to which conservatives now believe this utter nonsense is pretty crazy. For decades they've talked up how businesses should be able to decide whatever they want for their business. Their business, their rules. Now when it goes against them, suddenly private businesses making decisions for their own platforms is now "authoritarianism". Funny how people getting mysteriously fired when bringing up unions with colleagues wasn't authoritarianism. Getting fired from your job because you're gay? Also not authoritarianism, obviously.
- Frondo 6y ago
  Or put another way, why is it okay that baker can refuse to bake the cake for a gay wedding, but Apple must be compelled to work with Parler?

gjsman-1000 6y ago

Next stop for Apple: Block Twitter. You can find a violent threat against anybody and the place is just a cesspool of hate.

dr-detroit 6y ago
block terrorist sites like wikileaks

gjsman-1000 6y ago

You know Tim that every argument against Parler can also be applied to Twitter, right?

qwerty12345678 6y ago

This is absurd and infuriating that people are sheepishly agreeing with a mega-corporation as they literally attempt to change the definition of something in front of our eyes. Has no-one read 1984? All based around selectively curated emotional political topics. Do you really think the gun won't be turned on you as soon as it suits them? Time to tear the entire fucking system down and redistribute power.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

The number of commenters here who apparently believe "free speech means businesses have to let me say whatever I want inside their business" is both sad and disappointing.

siruncledrew 6y ago

After reading a bunch of back-and-forth debate on HN about this free speech vs. private speech saga, what still confuses me is the role of corporations in this. Some responses say “corporations don’t legally have to protect speech” others say “corporations are people so this is 1st amendment”. What I gather is that corporations are in this nebulous legal chasm of technically-a-person while also not-a-person? So corporations can be a person at times (ex. political contributions) while not at other times (ex. limited liability)? I admit my ignorance of not knowing how corporate law works. Maybe someone can explain.

db48x 6y ago

I'm so glad that our free speech is whatever Tim Cook decides it is.

eplanit 6y ago

The mobile world has trained users to think that they should only be able to run sanctioned software approved by the device maker -- so much for the personal computer era. Now, people pay a higher price but they have less control over their devices than ever before. Why is Apple even involved here? If people want a nasty app on their phone, then they should be able to have it. This idea of the vendor dictating terms (and taking profits) has now become normalized. I see no real fight against it, so far, which is sad. Personally, I install hardly any apps (literally only 3) for my phone. Tim Cook is free to have his opinion, but his company should play no role in suppressing others' opinions. He should not have to host an app he hates, but he should not dictate that to all his customers. Who elected him?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> Why is Apple even involved here? If people want a nasty app on their phone, then they should be able to have it. Exactly. The real problem isn't that Apple has some policy about moderation for their app store -- it's their app store, some amount of curation is completely necessary, that they have policies to that end is completely fine. That's how stores work. The real problem is that people don't have a choice to use any other app store, or independently install an app some other way (e.g. directly downloading it from a webpage or transferring it over a USB cable). In Androidland, once Parler is back up on some web host, it will be technically possible to get their apk from somewhere else and install it, if you want it. Just like I can get NewPipe somewhere other than Google's app store.
nbzso 6y ago
If you check my comments you will find similar reactions. But recently I have revisioned my view on Big Tech. Big Tech has money and budgets of a small countries. They obviously are part of political spectrum and will be the gateway and control outlet for 4th Industrial Revolution. I highly recommend everyone to read this:"A Framework for Developing a National Artificial Intelligence Strategy" - WEF link - (https://tinyurl.com/y6lwfdcy https://tinyurl.com/y6lwfdcy). They are using current political stage to test and establish (normalise) the idea of censoring in the name of security, privacy and common good.

RickJWagner 6y ago

Leftist Alec Baldwin is Tweeting today about a dream where Donald Trump is tried, a noose awaits him. Is that violent enough? What's out of bounds and what's not?

IdontRememberIt 6y ago

Will Tim Cook kick out Twitter because we can read daily homophobic, racist, hate, etc. messages on that app?