6 ms·

Apple sued by group insisting it curb Telegram

48 points by gritzko 6y ago

cyb_ 6y ago
https://archive.is/pwRof https://archive.is/pwRof
mc32 6y ago
Here we go. Now that app stores and services have voluntarily collaborated in restricting speech, we can see more pressure campaigns to curb speech. First it’s violence, next it’s favorite targets then it’s non proscribed speech. Stop going down this slope while you still can push back. If you give in, everyone who has an axe to grind will come with theirs.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Don’t make it a slippery slope then! Why dress up hate speech, harassment, threats of violence, doxxing as “not prescribed speech” like there is no possible way to separate them from all other forms of communication? Arguments like this are the oil that makes the slope slippery. If you’ll be exactly as mad when someone “censors” harassment verses when they censor opinions they don’t like you send the message that they might as well just do that then.
  - e9 6y ago
    The problem is who decides what hate speech is. Ira Glasser has good point here: https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/ https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
    - irjustin 6y ago
      I'll agree that censoring speech is probably one of the sharpest double edge swords to play with. My counter to "who decides what hate speech is" - we need to actively figure it out. We can't sit back and say "it's too hard to decide" so we should tolerate all speech either by decision or inaction. Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
      - nullifidian 6y ago
        >we need to actively figure it out. No we don't.
      - jwalton 6y ago
        This is a bit like saying “who should we trust to be king sounds hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean we should settle for democracy.” > Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. Having the government decide what people are and are not allowed to say sounds a lot more dangerous to me. That’s how you end up with an official state religion and all other beliefs are outlawed, or you you end up with not being allowed to talk about being gay in public without fear of being stoned to death.
    - mcv 6y ago
      While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, threats, blackmail, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them? There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation. (That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)
      - notadev 6y ago
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
        mcv 6y ago
        From that article: There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" Still supports my point: there are limits to free speech when it involves inciting violence (or other lawless action). And there's still also libel laws which make lies illegal in some cases. Though I believe that's a civil rather than criminal issue.
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    Because anyone who has looked at this historically or practically knows there is no > possible way to separate them from all other forms of communication because the very people making that decision would be the very people youd least want to make that decision.
  - jwalton 6y ago
    In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to be an atheist, because of the hatred you are spreading for the state religion. It seems obvious to you what is and isn’t hate speech, and it seems obvious we should be able to outlaw it as a result, but I suspect you’ll find your definition and that of 100 random people off the internet will differ substantially. There will be some common ground, but there will be some fuzzy bits around the edges. Who do we give the power to decide which of those fuzzy bits to enforce end which not? Trump won’t be in power for much longer in the US, but someone like him will probably be in power again. Is that the kind of person you want defining what is and isn’t hate speech? Or perhaps is should be Jeff Bezos who decides what is and isn’t hate speech? What happens when someone in power decides that talking about the wrong god or the wrong kind of sexuality or the wrong kind of people is “hate speech”? What checks and balances will be in place to prevent that from happening? We have some recourse against a US president in the form of the constitution, but we have none against Amazon. Do we just trust that the tech giants will always have our best interest at heart?
    - kaba0 6y ago
      It is hate speech in Saudi Arabia by definition of law (I guess, but I didn’t look up your claim). In Germany there is a different law for hate speech with a proper definition, made by the government chosen by the people - which may or may not have been the case in the former case. I don’t see how a law on hate speech is any different from all the other laws. Separation of powers is a thing (and it should be the highest priority of the people to keep it separate), and there are already plenty of rules controlling every aspect of our lives. How is it different in the case of hate speech? A theoretical case of a dictator rising would mean that a) he/she changes the definition of said hate speech to be more ambiguous b) infiltrate/corrupt the juries to remove people they deem dangerous to them. Now, if they manage to do a, they can have an easier time removing said opponents, but only with some corruption on the juries’ side. And if that happens, they could do away with the change of law, since any law can be applied to the oppnents in this case.
- diragon 6y ago
  If you start putting people who murder people with knives in prisons, soon we're not gonna be able to use knives in our kitchens.
  - newsbinator 6y ago
    Determining murder is (fairly) objective. You have a dead person and a guy with a knife who confesses that he stabbed him. Determining hate speech isn’t usually (or ever?) objective. You have a living person and a guy with a chat bubble who confesses that he has a political opinion. Sometimes you want that guy's speech. Take the world of Star Wars, after the Empire has won. What is hate speech in their world? If you say that people who believe in the Sith religion are bad, that's "Hate Speech" and should be deplatformed.
    - krageon 6y ago
      A political opinion and hate speech are distinct. There's at least one law body you can look at to help you understand why and how that is, namely the German one.
    - diragon 6y ago
      That's a great analogy because it highlights an important point: we're living in the real world, not in a movie. In the real world, it's sometimes fairly obvious when someone should be forcibly shut up. In the olden days, it meant leaving an establishment when some village idiot was rambling in there. Eventually, the owner of the establishment would stop letting the idiot in. That's what's happening in Twitter, nothing more. The scale is a lot larger, sure, but still.
      - newsbinator 6y ago
        That reminds me of: > The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
emptyparadise 6y ago
Maybe an article like this should also mention how Telegram is being used by protesters in oppressive countries.
- emptysongglass 6y ago
  Right? Russia, Belarus, Hong Kong... Not a single mention of the app being used to fight tyranny.
DeonPenny 6y ago
Well this isnt suprising. They open the door and people walked straight in.
WhyNotHugo 6y ago
Apple should also remove WhatsApp and iMessages since they can be used by undesirable groups to coordinate their efforts. Plus, definitely Jitsi, and Gmail too. All these apps are dangerous! Actually, just removing the keyboard and microphone would be safest, it keeps any terrorist from inputting any dangerous message at all.
ksec 6y ago
Hypothetical question. It was only the other day I thought about the same problem. What if these group, or whatever it is Apple deemed unacceptable were using; Email - Doing good old fashion email reading and writing it with Gmail. RSS - spreading their thoughts via Feeds and read using Feedly or any other RSS Reader. Phone Call - These people are actually communicating using Call Conference. Will Apple forced Google to Moderate those Emails? Feedly to filter RSS? All ISP and Carriers to do similar? I mean it is great we have many web forums, Apple themselves actively filter and purge all mention of Keyboard, Display issues, Stain gate threads on their user support forums. Normally they get spread out via other forum into Main stream media before Apple stops censoring it.
upofadown 6y ago
The article ends with this quote from the head of the group doing the suit: >"Our research revealed serious instances whereby TELEGRAM’s end-to-end encryption service was enabling." ... which is an odd point when the complaint is about moderation. This could be yet another thinly disguised attack on encryption.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aiilns 6y ago
I'm actually in favor of this. Not because I agree with Apple/Google/Amazon etc acting as speech restricting overlords, but because I think it has to get a lot worse before people realize the dangers of what's happening and demand changes that will put such matters out of corporations' hands.
- pcdoodle 6y ago
  You're nuts. Pressuring big tech to backdoor all encrypted communication because you're scared of a little private hate speech?
  - aiilns 6y ago
    I think you misunderstood my comment. I just think that it will take worse restrictions of speech & privacy issues for a complete change in a new direction. Big tech is already pressured to backdoor all encrypted communication (and frankly I think big tech themselves don't care for privacy, quite the opposite). So since (IMHO) it'll take worse things to come for people to take a stand, let it get worse quicker so it gets better quicker. edit to make my point clearer: Letting corporations play the role of "benevolent" leaders on speech & privacy issues _is_ the problem. Trying to pressure them one way or the other _isn't_ the answer. So let them overreach even more, let them anger more people than the ones on Parler, let them show their true face. Let it become an issue for as many people as possible. For it is societies that should find answers collectively on what is tolerable for one to say/publish, how much privacy especially since the information age matters etc. The internet and the huge platforms that the capitalist system has helped create should belong to the people, and what happens there should be a decision for the people to make.
    - BelenusMordred 6y ago
      Creating laws are a few magnitudes easier than undoing them. This idea you have of "let the world burn so we can fix it quicker" is not realistic. The modern legal and political systems on Earth simply don't work this way.
Bellamy 6y ago
I hope the court understands it's not about Telegram or any other tool used for communication, but the problems happening in "the land of the free".
topicseed 6y ago
Apple should remove Chrome and Safari as there are some crazy websites out there in the wild.

48 points by gritzko 6y ago

cyb_ 6y ago

https://archive.is/pwRof https://archive.is/pwRof

mc32 6y ago

Here we go. Now that app stores and services have voluntarily collaborated in restricting speech, we can see more pressure campaigns to curb speech. First it’s violence, next it’s favorite targets then it’s non proscribed speech. Stop going down this slope while you still can push back. If you give in, everyone who has an axe to grind will come with theirs.

Spivak 6y ago
Don’t make it a slippery slope then! Why dress up hate speech, harassment, threats of violence, doxxing as “not prescribed speech” like there is no possible way to separate them from all other forms of communication? Arguments like this are the oil that makes the slope slippery. If you’ll be exactly as mad when someone “censors” harassment verses when they censor opinions they don’t like you send the message that they might as well just do that then.
- e9 6y ago
  The problem is who decides what hate speech is. Ira Glasser has good point here: https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-explains-why-you-cant-ban-hate-speech/ https://reclaimthenet.org/former-aclu-head-ira-glasser-expla...
  - irjustin 6y ago
    I'll agree that censoring speech is probably one of the sharpest double edge swords to play with. My counter to "who decides what hate speech is" - we need to actively figure it out. We can't sit back and say "it's too hard to decide" so we should tolerate all speech either by decision or inaction. Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - nullifidian 6y ago
      >we need to actively figure it out. No we don't.
    - jwalton 6y ago
      This is a bit like saying “who should we trust to be king sounds hard to figure out, but that doesn’t mean we should settle for democracy.” > Not actively engaging is as dangerous as letting a specific group decide. Having the government decide what people are and are not allowed to say sounds a lot more dangerous to me. That’s how you end up with an official state religion and all other beliefs are outlawed, or you you end up with not being allowed to talk about being gay in public without fear of being stoned to death.
  - mcv 6y ago
    While that's definitely an important concern, it is already true that there are things you're not allowed to say. Things that hurt people, like libel/slander, threats, blackmail, shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. So why is some speech that hurts people banned, while other speech that hurts people is allowed? This should be the test for what counts as hate speech. Can you call the press "the enemy of the people" if that leads to journalists getting hurt? Can you call certain demographic groups a threat to society if that leads people to take action against those groups? Is it only the people who stormed the Capitol who are guilty of that, or also the politicians and others who encouraged them? There is always going to be some limit to free speech. The question is: is that line in the right place? Does it need to be moved one way or the other? Does it allow speech that endangers lives? Does it ban speech that doesn't? That has to be a constant evaluation. (That said, I regret banning communication apps. I'd rather see people be held accountable for the things they say on those apps. By the law, not by corporations.)
    - notadev 6y ago
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/264449/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article...
      - mcv 6y ago
        From that article: There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" Still supports my point: there are limits to free speech when it involves inciting violence (or other lawless action). And there's still also libel laws which make lies illegal in some cases. Though I believe that's a civil rather than criminal issue.
- DeonPenny 6y ago
  Because anyone who has looked at this historically or practically knows there is no > possible way to separate them from all other forms of communication because the very people making that decision would be the very people youd least want to make that decision.
- jwalton 6y ago
  In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to be an atheist, because of the hatred you are spreading for the state religion. It seems obvious to you what is and isn’t hate speech, and it seems obvious we should be able to outlaw it as a result, but I suspect you’ll find your definition and that of 100 random people off the internet will differ substantially. There will be some common ground, but there will be some fuzzy bits around the edges. Who do we give the power to decide which of those fuzzy bits to enforce end which not? Trump won’t be in power for much longer in the US, but someone like him will probably be in power again. Is that the kind of person you want defining what is and isn’t hate speech? Or perhaps is should be Jeff Bezos who decides what is and isn’t hate speech? What happens when someone in power decides that talking about the wrong god or the wrong kind of sexuality or the wrong kind of people is “hate speech”? What checks and balances will be in place to prevent that from happening? We have some recourse against a US president in the form of the constitution, but we have none against Amazon. Do we just trust that the tech giants will always have our best interest at heart?
  - kaba0 6y ago
    It is hate speech in Saudi Arabia by definition of law (I guess, but I didn’t look up your claim). In Germany there is a different law for hate speech with a proper definition, made by the government chosen by the people - which may or may not have been the case in the former case. I don’t see how a law on hate speech is any different from all the other laws. Separation of powers is a thing (and it should be the highest priority of the people to keep it separate), and there are already plenty of rules controlling every aspect of our lives. How is it different in the case of hate speech? A theoretical case of a dictator rising would mean that a) he/she changes the definition of said hate speech to be more ambiguous b) infiltrate/corrupt the juries to remove people they deem dangerous to them. Now, if they manage to do a, they can have an easier time removing said opponents, but only with some corruption on the juries’ side. And if that happens, they could do away with the change of law, since any law can be applied to the oppnents in this case.
diragon 6y ago
If you start putting people who murder people with knives in prisons, soon we're not gonna be able to use knives in our kitchens.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  Determining murder is (fairly) objective. You have a dead person and a guy with a knife who confesses that he stabbed him. Determining hate speech isn’t usually (or ever?) objective. You have a living person and a guy with a chat bubble who confesses that he has a political opinion. Sometimes you want that guy's speech. Take the world of Star Wars, after the Empire has won. What is hate speech in their world? If you say that people who believe in the Sith religion are bad, that's "Hate Speech" and should be deplatformed.
  - krageon 6y ago
    A political opinion and hate speech are distinct. There's at least one law body you can look at to help you understand why and how that is, namely the German one.
  - diragon 6y ago
    That's a great analogy because it highlights an important point: we're living in the real world, not in a movie. In the real world, it's sometimes fairly obvious when someone should be forcibly shut up. In the olden days, it meant leaving an establishment when some village idiot was rambling in there. Eventually, the owner of the establishment would stop letting the idiot in. That's what's happening in Twitter, nothing more. The scale is a lot larger, sure, but still.
    - newsbinator 6y ago
      That reminds me of: > The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which a speaker attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly defined parameters. The phrase was used in 1964 by United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

emptyparadise 6y ago

Maybe an article like this should also mention how Telegram is being used by protesters in oppressive countries.

emptysongglass 6y ago
Right? Russia, Belarus, Hong Kong... Not a single mention of the app being used to fight tyranny.

DeonPenny 6y ago

Well this isnt suprising. They open the door and people walked straight in.

WhyNotHugo 6y ago

Apple should also remove WhatsApp and iMessages since they can be used by undesirable groups to coordinate their efforts. Plus, definitely Jitsi, and Gmail too. All these apps are dangerous! Actually, just removing the keyboard and microphone would be safest, it keeps any terrorist from inputting any dangerous message at all.

ksec 6y ago

Hypothetical question. It was only the other day I thought about the same problem. What if these group, or whatever it is Apple deemed unacceptable were using; Email - Doing good old fashion email reading and writing it with Gmail. RSS - spreading their thoughts via Feeds and read using Feedly or any other RSS Reader. Phone Call - These people are actually communicating using Call Conference. Will Apple forced Google to Moderate those Emails? Feedly to filter RSS? All ISP and Carriers to do similar? I mean it is great we have many web forums, Apple themselves actively filter and purge all mention of Keyboard, Display issues, Stain gate threads on their user support forums. Normally they get spread out via other forum into Main stream media before Apple stops censoring it.

upofadown 6y ago

The article ends with this quote from the head of the group doing the suit: >"Our research revealed serious instances whereby TELEGRAM’s end-to-end encryption service was enabling." ... which is an odd point when the complaint is about moderation. This could be yet another thinly disguised attack on encryption.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aiilns 6y ago

I'm actually in favor of this. Not because I agree with Apple/Google/Amazon etc acting as speech restricting overlords, but because I think it has to get a lot worse before people realize the dangers of what's happening and demand changes that will put such matters out of corporations' hands.

pcdoodle 6y ago
You're nuts. Pressuring big tech to backdoor all encrypted communication because you're scared of a little private hate speech?
- aiilns 6y ago
  I think you misunderstood my comment. I just think that it will take worse restrictions of speech & privacy issues for a complete change in a new direction. Big tech is already pressured to backdoor all encrypted communication (and frankly I think big tech themselves don't care for privacy, quite the opposite). So since (IMHO) it'll take worse things to come for people to take a stand, let it get worse quicker so it gets better quicker. edit to make my point clearer: Letting corporations play the role of "benevolent" leaders on speech & privacy issues _is_ the problem. Trying to pressure them one way or the other _isn't_ the answer. So let them overreach even more, let them anger more people than the ones on Parler, let them show their true face. Let it become an issue for as many people as possible. For it is societies that should find answers collectively on what is tolerable for one to say/publish, how much privacy especially since the information age matters etc. The internet and the huge platforms that the capitalist system has helped create should belong to the people, and what happens there should be a decision for the people to make.
  - BelenusMordred 6y ago
    Creating laws are a few magnitudes easier than undoing them. This idea you have of "let the world burn so we can fix it quicker" is not realistic. The modern legal and political systems on Earth simply don't work this way.

Bellamy 6y ago

I hope the court understands it's not about Telegram or any other tool used for communication, but the problems happening in "the land of the free".

topicseed 6y ago

Apple should remove Chrome and Safari as there are some crazy websites out there in the wild.