6 ms·

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: private companies can ban what they want! It's good for corporations to have ethics, even if I don't agree with said e

by caslon 6y ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it now: private companies can ban what they want! It's good for corporations to have ethics, even if I don't agree with said ethics, whether it's banning Gab or this. It's their constitutional right, and it's a responsibility that comes with having the power they do.

Scandiravian 6y ago
The US Constitution only applies within the US, it offers no rights in other territories and Google's actions might be in violation with laws in those territories
- caslon 6y ago
  In which I support and actively encourage Google to exercise their right to pull out of those territories—entirely.
  - Scandiravian 6y ago
    They of course have that right, but they have made a choice to expand into new territories and have to obey those laws They've knowingly entered other markets and if they fail to follow the law there, they're on the hook for it - even if they decide to leave after the fact I understand you support Google's right to choose where they do their business - I support that as well. Do you also support sovereign states to pursue legal action against a corporate entity, that willfully breaks their laws? If Google would rather leave than uphold my rights, then I'll be happy to see them leave
baq 6y ago
private does not mean not public. private reflects ownership, not public dependence on a service. there's a whole class of private enterprises which can't do almost anything just because they want to - they're called utilities. water, electricity, garbage collection, internet search, software distribution come to mind as good examples of utilities.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Big corporations having the rights of people isn't in the constitution.
- cityofdelusion 6y ago
  Literally? No, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution otherwise, at least over the last century. It would take a well-worded amendment to explicitly state that certain organizations of persons are different from persons in general.
echelon 6y ago
The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Web isn't first class, and there's no open standard or easy way to distribute native apps. 1990-2010's Internet didn't have this problem. Nobody cares if Xbox bans your game. There are a dozen plus other platforms. But if Apple or Google say no, you're toast. We need a bill of rights to protect us against megaplatforms.
- caslon 6y ago
  > The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Neither has a monopoly, or anything close to a monopoly. Duopolies are legal. > Web isn't first class, and there's no open standard or easy way to distribute native apps. This isn't a bad thing. People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares.
  - leggenda47 6y ago
    > People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Installing Cydia on an iPhone requires jailbreaking, I think. Sideloading is easier but you have to jump through a few hoops to be able to install apps. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights?
    - caslon 6y ago
      > It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Having domain knowledge is pretty helpful in everything. People who don't know what they're doing shouldn't play with explosives, for example. Plenty of ten year olds have jailbroken their devices, just check the jailbreak reddit. If they can do it, anyone can. Just read about it first. Epic Games got hundreds of thousands of little kids to sideload their app on Google's operating system. > I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights? Forcing someone to host something takes away their right to free speech.
ardit33 6y ago
no.... we put a limit into what private companies can discriminate against. Private taxis would routinely refuse you service because of your ethnic background it still can happen, but it is illegal for good reasons
- caslon 6y ago
  There's a constitutional amendment for that specific carve-out, though. The constitution permits that limit, it doesn't what many in this thread are proposing.
  - Brian_K_White 6y ago
    It's not only the same, it's worse. You have 2 choices: 1) Decline to recognize thst Google is in any way a special case, and so treat Google like any other private business, like your brother-in-laws little one-man coffee shop. 2) Recognize that Google is in any way special and different from some other random small private business. Let's say you subscribe to 1) : On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. Your freedom as a business operator is that you are free not to operate a business if you can't stomach the thought of having to sell flour to black people. So, if you think Google is just a private business like any other and with the same rights as any other, then they must offer flour to the black people too. They can't mysteriously be out of flour just for some people based on race, religion, sex, etc. But of course, whether anyone subscribes to it or not, 2) is in effect. Google is not just a private business like a motorcycle repair shop or a hair salon. A marketplace owner doesn't just own a business that must service everyone equally, they actually own the street that all possible businesses and all possible customers must use. That makes the marketplace owner an order of magnitude more liable for their actions, in the way that the state is for the ordinary phyical street. Now their decisions not only abuse an individual customer (an app developer) but exert control over entire populations. It is ENTIRELY reasonable and rational and fair to have strict limits, high standards, and onerous even draconian oversight on anyone in any such position. The state weilds that same sort of control over ordinary streets and businesses and customers, and because of that, the state is actually very limited in what it can do, and must always be able to justify why it does anything. (in theory anyway, on paper anyway). If the state wants to say that some business can't operate, it has to be prepared to defend that decision legally. Google and other large operations have set up environments where they have state-level control over state-level populations with corner coffee shop-level autonomy.

by caslon 6y ago

Scandiravian 6y ago

The US Constitution only applies within the US, it offers no rights in other territories and Google's actions might be in violation with laws in those territories

caslon 6y ago
In which I support and actively encourage Google to exercise their right to pull out of those territories—entirely.
- Scandiravian 6y ago
  They of course have that right, but they have made a choice to expand into new territories and have to obey those laws They've knowingly entered other markets and if they fail to follow the law there, they're on the hook for it - even if they decide to leave after the fact I understand you support Google's right to choose where they do their business - I support that as well. Do you also support sovereign states to pursue legal action against a corporate entity, that willfully breaks their laws? If Google would rather leave than uphold my rights, then I'll be happy to see them leave

baq 6y ago

private does not mean not public. private reflects ownership, not public dependence on a service. there's a whole class of private enterprises which can't do almost anything just because they want to - they're called utilities. water, electricity, garbage collection, internet search, software distribution come to mind as good examples of utilities.

Dylan16807 6y ago

Big corporations having the rights of people isn't in the constitution.

cityofdelusion 6y ago
Literally? No, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution otherwise, at least over the last century. It would take a well-worded amendment to explicitly state that certain organizations of persons are different from persons in general.

echelon 6y ago

The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Web isn't first class, and there's no open standard or easy way to distribute native apps. 1990-2010's Internet didn't have this problem. Nobody cares if Xbox bans your game. There are a dozen plus other platforms. But if Apple or Google say no, you're toast. We need a bill of rights to protect us against megaplatforms.

caslon 6y ago
> The problem is the iPhone and Android platforms are the only two ways to reach many customers. Neither has a monopoly, or anything close to a monopoly. Duopolies are legal. > Web isn't first class, and there's no open standard or easy way to distribute native apps. This isn't a bad thing. People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares.
- leggenda47 6y ago
  > People who want native apps from a source other than Apple or Google can pretty easily get them: Cydia's existed longer than the App Store has, and Google makes it easy to sideload anything. It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Installing Cydia on an iPhone requires jailbreaking, I think. Sideloading is easier but you have to jump through a few hoops to be able to install apps. > The world doesn't owe you a business model, and you can't take away people's rights because you want a better way to sell your wares. I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights?
  - caslon 6y ago
    > It might be easy for tech-savvy people but not for the average customer. Having domain knowledge is pretty helpful in everything. People who don't know what they're doing shouldn't play with explosives, for example. Plenty of ten year olds have jailbroken their devices, just check the jailbreak reddit. If they can do it, anyone can. Just read about it first. Epic Games got hundreds of thousands of little kids to sideload their app on Google's operating system. > I may be misunderstanding this but how does this take away people's rights? Forcing someone to host something takes away their right to free speech.

ardit33 6y ago

no.... we put a limit into what private companies can discriminate against. Private taxis would routinely refuse you service because of your ethnic background it still can happen, but it is illegal for good reasons

caslon 6y ago
There's a constitutional amendment for that specific carve-out, though. The constitution permits that limit, it doesn't what many in this thread are proposing.
- Brian_K_White 6y ago
  It's not only the same, it's worse. You have 2 choices: 1) Decline to recognize thst Google is in any way a special case, and so treat Google like any other private business, like your brother-in-laws little one-man coffee shop. 2) Recognize that Google is in any way special and different from some other random small private business. Let's say you subscribe to 1) : On the surface level, being denied service in the app store because your app caters to people who are poly, is like being denied service in the general store because you're black, or Chinese, Or Jewish. Your freedom as a business operator is that you are free not to operate a business if you can't stomach the thought of having to sell flour to black people. So, if you think Google is just a private business like any other and with the same rights as any other, then they must offer flour to the black people too. They can't mysteriously be out of flour just for some people based on race, religion, sex, etc. But of course, whether anyone subscribes to it or not, 2) is in effect. Google is not just a private business like a motorcycle repair shop or a hair salon. A marketplace owner doesn't just own a business that must service everyone equally, they actually own the street that all possible businesses and all possible customers must use. That makes the marketplace owner an order of magnitude more liable for their actions, in the way that the state is for the ordinary phyical street. Now their decisions not only abuse an individual customer (an app developer) but exert control over entire populations. It is ENTIRELY reasonable and rational and fair to have strict limits, high standards, and onerous even draconian oversight on anyone in any such position. The state weilds that same sort of control over ordinary streets and businesses and customers, and because of that, the state is actually very limited in what it can do, and must always be able to justify why it does anything. (in theory anyway, on paper anyway). If the state wants to say that some business can't operate, it has to be prepared to defend that decision legally. Google and other large operations have set up environments where they have state-level control over state-level populations with corner coffee shop-level autonomy.