4 ms·

This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed ou

This is the dangerous flip side to having two players be the gatekeepers as to what can and cannot be an app (yes, I'm aware on android apps can be installed outside google play technically... but the audience is tiny). With Parler, for example, I remember reading tons of posts in support of taking the app down. But that same process can be easily used to silence apps like these.

jasonvorhe 6y ago
This has nothing to do with Parler. Google has been auto-banning apps based on stupid blacklists and ML magic for years because they don't have a human review process (or if they do, it doesn't do good work). A couple of weeks ago it hit a Matrix chat app and it's been restored now. The shit storm will now lead to someone at Google escalating this and the app will be back soon. I'm pretty sure that banning Parler was a decision where a lot of people where involved.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 6y ago
Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple. It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-total-arrested-during-kavanaugh-hearings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepers-capitol-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...). And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation. Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.
- elastolin 6y ago
  Agreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline of the United States.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago
  > How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line That's not what happened and you know it. AOC wasn't a singular voice, there were lots of people calling for Parler to be shut down. I'm not going to engage with the rest of it, but this point is important because it's being used to demonize another human being. You're repeating a narrative without scrutinizing it, please be more critical.
  - odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
    I am not American or follow US politics that much, but did she ask for Parler to be shutdown? If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this. Specially (from what I understand from seeing some of her twitter posts on Reddit) if she is very vocal on Twitter (reminded me of accusing Ted Cruz of trying to assassinate her tweet) about these things and can rally support for it through social media.
    - Griffinsauce 6y ago
      > If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it. The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an irrational faceless "the left" to dehumanize further) We can talk about what the influence is of a person in that position and whether it's ethical to join in such a call but that is a completely different can of worms and not what I was commenting on. Stacking "this person did it" with "this person abused their power" is irresponsible without examining each statement.
anang 6y ago
Wasn’t Parler take down reactively, as a response to the users’ behavior and content on the site? That seems different (and significantly easier to justify) than blanket bans based on some algorithmic analysis of an app’s name. Sort the difference between banning one person from your store for being loud and disruptive and banning all people that meet a certain criteria. I’m not saying google is or isn’t within their rights in either case, but they do seem different to me.

jasonvorhe 6y ago

This has nothing to do with Parler. Google has been auto-banning apps based on stupid blacklists and ML magic for years because they don't have a human review process (or if they do, it doesn't do good work). A couple of weeks ago it hit a Matrix chat app and it's been restored now. The shit storm will now lead to someone at Google escalating this and the app will be back soon. I'm pretty sure that banning Parler was a decision where a lot of people where involved.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 6y ago

Taking down Parler was certainly not justified, but I agree it was one step down the slippery slope that normalizes this kind of brazen gatekeeping on essential public utilities like app stores. Facebook played a much larger role in the planning of the riot at the capitol riots (https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/sheryl-sandberg-downplayed-facebooks-role-in-the-capitol-hill-siege-justice-department-files-tell-a-very-different-story/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/02/07/shery...) and they faced no consequences, presumably because they share the same political culture as Google and Apple. It's also a gross overreaction to shut down Parler because the vast majority of people using Parler or supporting Trump did not participate in the riot. Tens of thousands were in DC that day for various rallies and protests, and thousands stayed outside the barricades at the capitol. A few hundred went past them as protesters (rioters?), but committed no additional crimes beyond trespassing, which is the same as past incidents at the capitol like the riots at Brett Kavanaugh hearings (https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-total-arrested-during-kavanaugh-hearings https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/405500-212-protesters-to...). Ultimately only 10 were associated with the Oath Keepers (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepers-capitol-riot.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/29/us/oath-keepe...). And on the balance, Parler had 20 million users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler) and Trump had north of 70 million supporters. It's not justifiable to stop all those people from having a voice. How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line by banning the app, and for other companies to also participate in a seemingly coordinated deplatforming effort? It's also chilling to consider that a sitting legislator can call for the shutdown of the speech of private citizens - that amounts to the government coercing bans of speech from private organizations, and is a first amendment violation. Either way, here we are, in a world where people depend on their mobile phones as utilities, but are serviced by companies that are not regulated as public utilities. They need to either stop being gatekeepers, and act neutrally, or they need to be regulated to enforce that requirement. After all, they are effectively immune to competition.

elastolin 6y ago
Agreed, it makes zero sense. And AOC is symbol of the decline of the United States.
Griffinsauce 6y ago
> How was it at all justifiable for AOC to demand Parler be shutdown, for tech companies to immediately fall in line That's not what happened and you know it. AOC wasn't a singular voice, there were lots of people calling for Parler to be shut down. I'm not going to engage with the rest of it, but this point is important because it's being used to demonize another human being. You're repeating a narrative without scrutinizing it, please be more critical.
- odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
  I am not American or follow US politics that much, but did she ask for Parler to be shutdown? If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this. Specially (from what I understand from seeing some of her twitter posts on Reddit) if she is very vocal on Twitter (reminded me of accusing Ted Cruz of trying to assassinate her tweet) about these things and can rally support for it through social media.
  - Griffinsauce 6y ago
    > If she did, even if others did as well, it should be ok to point her out on this That exactly my point, the original comment points her out as the only or the main voice. That is just not true, it paints a skewed picture. She was either joining the choir of voices or preaching to it. The goal of that characterisation is to demonize this one person into the source of this action. (ironically often combined with an irrational faceless "the left" to dehumanize further) We can talk about what the influence is of a person in that position and whether it's ethical to join in such a call but that is a completely different can of worms and not what I was commenting on. Stacking "this person did it" with "this person abused their power" is irresponsible without examining each statement.

anang 6y ago

Wasn’t Parler take down reactively, as a response to the users’ behavior and content on the site? That seems different (and significantly easier to justify) than blanket bans based on some algorithmic analysis of an app’s name. Sort the difference between banning one person from your store for being loud and disruptive and banning all people that meet a certain criteria. I’m not saying google is or isn’t within their rights in either case, but they do seem different to me.