6 ms·

It's because Twitter is (rightfully) willing to moderate this kind of content, whereas Parler explicitly refuses to. Apple doesn't want platforms that refuse to

It's because Twitter is (rightfully) willing to moderate this kind of content, whereas Parler explicitly refuses to. Apple doesn't want platforms that refuse to moderate Nazi content in the App Store - it is not selective enforcement, it is Parler being willingly obstinate and affirming itself as a home to the alt-right.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mesozoic 6y ago
iphones still have web browsers right? Is Apple moderating nazi sites from showing up on Safari?
- Bud 6y ago
  No. Nor is that issue relevant to this one.
sschueller 6y ago
Twitter permits pornography. Apple does not. How does that not cause a conflict? If my hypothetical instagram clone allowed pornography it would not be allowed in the app store.
- tcbawo 6y ago
  Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence?
  - yurielt 6y ago
    Are you being dishonest with rhetorical questions ?
    - kar5pt 6y ago
      No, he's pointing out that pornography and hate speech are two completely different things.
      - yurielt 6y ago
        I know but he is not actually engaging with the topic in a honest way he is presupposing a lot in the framing of his question like presupposing is consensual when in a lot of cases porn is not not only that but it dismissed the effects of porn on people and society while making us believe that the evil nazis in Parler are there and actually advocating for violence which mostly are not
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    > Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence? Uh, yes... because they're both legal and they're both free expression. If I tweet out, "We should burn all this shit down some day and execute the people responsible!" in regards to the corruption of our modern institutions, that's 100% legal, and the reason is because it doesn't pass the imminent lawless action standard, because I didn't say, "We should burn all this shit down and execute the people responsible for the corruption of our institutions on July 4, 2021 at 2:19 p.m. EST!" I'm advocating for illegal action at some future undefined time in the first example, which therefore does not meet the imminence requirement. Also, there's no such thing as hate speech... there's only speech you don't like. Or more accurately, a bunch of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous jackasses in Silicon Valley - many of whom probably post here on HN - may think there's a such thing as hate speech, but it doesn't exist in America, because, as actor David Margulies so eloquently said in Ghostbusters 2, "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Just expand "New Yorker" to "American".
    - tcbawo 6y ago
      You're describing the legal standard of free speech, vs the terms of service laid out by a corporate. As a private company, Twitter is presumably free to draw a line and enforce it consistently. I'm sure it's a fine line to walk. But, saying you have to allow Nazi propaganda because you allow pornography is a false equivalence. There are plenty of illegal/objectionable forms of pornography, which I purposefully did not include. Deciding you are not going to filter any content regardless of imminent lawless action seems especially reckless. I'm sure we'll be seeing this play out in court over the next few years.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Twitter has an age gate for adult material because of the Apple App store restrictions. Parler does not (but neither Parler nor Twitter censors pornography). At any rate, it wasn't the porn that got Parler kicked off the App Store.
- beej71 6y ago
  Remember that Apple is not for or against any particular type of content. It's for making corporate value and against losing corporate value. The actions make a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of money rather than the lens of morality, ethics, or righteousness, which are concepts foreign to corporate ethos, and ones that they are under no obligation to treat with any manner of fairness or consistency.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mesozoic 6y ago

iphones still have web browsers right? Is Apple moderating nazi sites from showing up on Safari?

Bud 6y ago
No. Nor is that issue relevant to this one.

sschueller 6y ago

Twitter permits pornography. Apple does not. How does that not cause a conflict? If my hypothetical instagram clone allowed pornography it would not be allowed in the app store.

tcbawo 6y ago
Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence?
- yurielt 6y ago
  Are you being dishonest with rhetorical questions ?
  - kar5pt 6y ago
    No, he's pointing out that pornography and hate speech are two completely different things.
    - yurielt 6y ago
      I know but he is not actually engaging with the topic in a honest way he is presupposing a lot in the framing of his question like presupposing is consensual when in a lot of cases porn is not not only that but it dismissed the effects of porn on people and society while making us believe that the evil nazis in Parler are there and actually advocating for violence which mostly are not
- cbozeman 6y ago
  > Are you equating consensual pornography between adults (presumably legal, free expression) with speech advocating violence? Uh, yes... because they're both legal and they're both free expression. If I tweet out, "We should burn all this shit down some day and execute the people responsible!" in regards to the corruption of our modern institutions, that's 100% legal, and the reason is because it doesn't pass the imminent lawless action standard, because I didn't say, "We should burn all this shit down and execute the people responsible for the corruption of our institutions on July 4, 2021 at 2:19 p.m. EST!" I'm advocating for illegal action at some future undefined time in the first example, which therefore does not meet the imminence requirement. Also, there's no such thing as hate speech... there's only speech you don't like. Or more accurately, a bunch of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous jackasses in Silicon Valley - many of whom probably post here on HN - may think there's a such thing as hate speech, but it doesn't exist in America, because, as actor David Margulies so eloquently said in Ghostbusters 2, "Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right." Just expand "New Yorker" to "American".
  - tcbawo 6y ago
    You're describing the legal standard of free speech, vs the terms of service laid out by a corporate. As a private company, Twitter is presumably free to draw a line and enforce it consistently. I'm sure it's a fine line to walk. But, saying you have to allow Nazi propaganda because you allow pornography is a false equivalence. There are plenty of illegal/objectionable forms of pornography, which I purposefully did not include. Deciding you are not going to filter any content regardless of imminent lawless action seems especially reckless. I'm sure we'll be seeing this play out in court over the next few years.
gamblor956 6y ago
Twitter has an age gate for adult material because of the Apple App store restrictions. Parler does not (but neither Parler nor Twitter censors pornography). At any rate, it wasn't the porn that got Parler kicked off the App Store.
beej71 6y ago
Remember that Apple is not for or against any particular type of content. It's for making corporate value and against losing corporate value. The actions make a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of money rather than the lens of morality, ethics, or righteousness, which are concepts foreign to corporate ethos, and ones that they are under no obligation to treat with any manner of fairness or consistency.