6 ms·

Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? Companies make choices about who they want to do business with all the time. If the argument is that Google and

Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? Companies make choices about who they want to do business with all the time. If the argument is that Google and Apple shouldn't be able to ban any apps on their respective stores, it would require enacting a law to force that upon them. The Google and Apple duopoly may be something that requires regulatory action but I don't see how a store should be forced to sell or distribute any product from a company whose conduct they find objectionable.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? "Code is law" -Lawrence Lessig But if you're looking for a government law, how about any of the ones that allow people who create alternate app stores via jailbreaks to be prosecuted.
- GVIrish 6y ago
  I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more. Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more. Companies have argued that it violates DMCA 1201 because you could plausibly use the other app store to install pirated apps or something like that. They're trying to have it both ways, of course, so they tolerate a couple of small irrelevant stores in order to claim that there are competitors even though they still have >95% of the market. But now explain why Amazon or Microsoft doesn't make their own app store for iOS. Or just sell a mod officially supported by one of these large companies that allows any arbitrary store to be installed on one of their competitors' platforms. > Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation. It is if it's the reason they can't just distribute through a different app store.
trident5000 6y ago
I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Apparently, not enough people do to make it economically sustainable.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Which is why antitrust enforcement is important.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Which is hard to do when a cartel greases our representatives in direct and indirect bribery (record setting campaign donations and banning their political opposition).
  - slowhand09 6y ago
    Right... only most of the world's population...
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >> Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating > This is a loophole that deserves to be closed. How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.
dcolkitt 6y ago
I feel like this argument is setting up a false dichotomy between saying it's the platforms' legal right and just throwing up your hands up and declaring "who care?" Plenty of activities are legal, but censured by cultural norms. Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. That doesn't mean there's a simple legal solution. But at the very least the users, from any part of the political spectrum, should be pissed off that the overlords in Mountain View have decided that certain ideas are too dangerous for their little brains.
- tstrimple 6y ago
  > Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare. Exactly right. Nothing would have happened to Parler if its userbase wasn't substantially affiliated with a mob that literally attacked the democratic process because they didn't like the result. I'm sure someone's thinking that the correct response to that is have the government police forces battle with the mob until it changes its mind of its own accord, rather than have (non-government) society take action against the root causes of the mob, like Parler. However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious.
    - yellowapple 6y ago
      > However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious. Not to mention entirely ignorant of the very notion of our government being ostensibly "by the people, of the people, for the people" - i.e. the government itself being a representation of society. So if society itself is broadly rejecting some viewpoint on its own, then it's kind of pointless for the government to get involved.
core-questions 6y ago
> If the argument is that Google and Apple shouldn't be able to ban any apps on their respective stores, it would require enacting a law to force that upon them. It doesn't have to be as black and white as that. The law could restrict their moderating powers to only removing malicious apps (defined by a reasonable heuristic); much as you may dislike the content, most badthink social networks are not also hacking your phone at the same time.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  In the same way a grocery store isn't required by law to carry your home goods/food product, a law that requires Google and Apple to host ANY app would be incredibly short-sighted.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    Yeah, fair to some extent, perhaps the requirement needs to be for people who purchase devices to have the right to install software on them. Then you can just use an alternate app store / sideload / whatever and Google et al can still curate to their hearts' content.
- dmode 6y ago
  How will you define that heuristic? In some sense that’s what they did. Having clean heuristic in a complicated world is impossible. For example, are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters ?
  - core-questions 6y ago
    > are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters Ultimately, I don't care; I support their right to free speech as much as I support anyone else's. It's for the law enforcement that has jurisdiction over them to decide what they want to do with what is posted.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? Duopoly: We are private company! Lawless oppression second to none! All other company have inferior oppression! Stop discussion of Tienanmen! Cancel political opponents! Purism: Hey, you there, customers, maybe that lot is headed down a road you don't want to travel and you should come over here. Q: What law is at work in the identified problem? A: What law is at work in the proposed solution?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? "Code is law" -Lawrence Lessig But if you're looking for a government law, how about any of the ones that allow people who create alternate app stores via jailbreaks to be prosecuted.

GVIrish 6y ago
I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more. Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more. Companies have argued that it violates DMCA 1201 because you could plausibly use the other app store to install pirated apps or something like that. They're trying to have it both ways, of course, so they tolerate a couple of small irrelevant stores in order to claim that there are competitors even though they still have >95% of the market. But now explain why Amazon or Microsoft doesn't make their own app store for iOS. Or just sell a mod officially supported by one of these large companies that allows any arbitrary store to be installed on one of their competitors' platforms. > Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation. It is if it's the reason they can't just distribute through a different app store.

trident5000 6y ago

I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Apparently, not enough people do to make it economically sustainable.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Which is why antitrust enforcement is important.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Which is hard to do when a cartel greases our representatives in direct and indirect bribery (record setting campaign donations and banning their political opposition).
- slowhand09 6y ago
  Right... only most of the world's population...
colejohnson66 6y ago
Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >> Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating > This is a loophole that deserves to be closed. How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.

dcolkitt 6y ago

I feel like this argument is setting up a false dichotomy between saying it's the platforms' legal right and just throwing up your hands up and declaring "who care?" Plenty of activities are legal, but censured by cultural norms. Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. That doesn't mean there's a simple legal solution. But at the very least the users, from any part of the political spectrum, should be pissed off that the overlords in Mountain View have decided that certain ideas are too dangerous for their little brains.

tstrimple 6y ago
> Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare. Exactly right. Nothing would have happened to Parler if its userbase wasn't substantially affiliated with a mob that literally attacked the democratic process because they didn't like the result. I'm sure someone's thinking that the correct response to that is have the government police forces battle with the mob until it changes its mind of its own accord, rather than have (non-government) society take action against the root causes of the mob, like Parler. However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious. Not to mention entirely ignorant of the very notion of our government being ostensibly "by the people, of the people, for the people" - i.e. the government itself being a representation of society. So if society itself is broadly rejecting some viewpoint on its own, then it's kind of pointless for the government to get involved.

core-questions 6y ago

> If the argument is that Google and Apple shouldn't be able to ban any apps on their respective stores, it would require enacting a law to force that upon them. It doesn't have to be as black and white as that. The law could restrict their moderating powers to only removing malicious apps (defined by a reasonable heuristic); much as you may dislike the content, most badthink social networks are not also hacking your phone at the same time.

darkwizard42 6y ago
In the same way a grocery store isn't required by law to carry your home goods/food product, a law that requires Google and Apple to host ANY app would be incredibly short-sighted.
- core-questions 6y ago
  Yeah, fair to some extent, perhaps the requirement needs to be for people who purchase devices to have the right to install software on them. Then you can just use an alternate app store / sideload / whatever and Google et al can still curate to their hearts' content.
dmode 6y ago
How will you define that heuristic? In some sense that’s what they did. Having clean heuristic in a complicated world is impossible. For example, are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters ?
- core-questions 6y ago
  > are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters Ultimately, I don't care; I support their right to free speech as much as I support anyone else's. It's for the law enforcement that has jurisdiction over them to decide what they want to do with what is posted.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? Duopoly: We are private company! Lawless oppression second to none! All other company have inferior oppression! Stop discussion of Tienanmen! Cancel political opponents! Purism: Hey, you there, customers, maybe that lot is headed down a road you don't want to travel and you should come over here. Q: What law is at work in the identified problem? A: What law is at work in the proposed solution?