5 ms·

Parler isn't banned from the internet, it's banned from AWS and mobile app stores. These bans weren't ordered by the government either.

paganel 5y ago
It was similar to self-censure from Amazon, that is if they wanted to still gain lucrative contracts with the military-industrial complex opposed by the candidate that they banned. To say nothing of the personal vendetta between the owner of Amazon and said candidate, the owner being the wealthyest man on Earth and directly controlling a big mouth-piece of the media (WashPo). The US is by definition an oligarchic state (the previous president was an oligarch, the current one was put in place by the oligarch enemies of the one before him).
- hhhhdnxndn 5y ago
  Do you really think the previous president and the current president are enemies?
  - paganel 5y ago
    No, I don't think Biden and Trump are enemies, I do think Bezos and Trump are enemies. In fact I tried saying that but because English is not my mother language maybe it came out wrong.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  > It was similar to self-censure from Amazon, that is if they wanted to still gain lucrative contracts with the military-industrial complex opposed by the candidate that they banned. Sounds like pure speculation.
  - paganel 5y ago
    It walks and quacks like self-censure in view of future monetary (and not only) gains. Again, I'm surprised that almost no-one in here (to say nothing of the big media outlets) is not saying anything about the huge conflict of interest involving Bezos and the companies he owns and/or controls.
  - nightwing 5y ago
    Don't you remember people from Google saying that it should not be broken up to be able to prevent "next Trump situation"? https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas/videos/2445258202376795/ https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas/videos/2445258202376...
- neonbones 5y ago
  >The US is by definition an oligarchic state Yep, I saw a few types of researches before. The US is, by all definitions, an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
belorn 5y ago
To me the negative aspects of censorship is not exclusive to governments. It is any censorship when it comes from the powerful controlling the powerless in order to maintain that power relationship. Government vs citizen is one form of power relation, but so is dominating market holder vs user. A third is infrastructure vs user. Apple has decided to hold the power of being the gatekeeper of mobile apps. Every time they utilize that power they demonstrate the power relation that they hold over their captured audience. I could be cheering when I agree with their choice and get upset every time they do something which I disagree with, but in terms of power it the exact same thing. I rather choose to oppose the power itself.
- ookdatnog 5y ago
  I'm not disagreeing that there are megacorporations which wield too much power. I don't believe it's a good thing that Apple can decide what software you can run on the device you bought, and I don't think the often used security argument is sufficient justification. It would be better if there were other legal ways to install software on iDevices. But if there are other ways to install software, I don't really have any moral qualms with Apple moderating its own store. They can sell whatever they choose to sell, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of Parler specifically, I see no moral issue whatsoever because you can still access Parler through the browser. Apple and Google aren't blocking their users from accessing Parler, they're simply refusing to do business with them. Calling this censorship or a violation of free speech is, to me, confusing the right to free speech with an imagined duty of other people and entities to provide you with a platform.
  - belorn 5y ago
    If there is no power relation then there is hard to argue an abuse of power. Since I am neither an iphone user, iphone developer or parler user/developer I can't know if such power relation exist. However could not the same be said about the app in the article? What does the app do that they can't do through the browser? If apple has no power in this relationship then the impact of the decision should be zero. It seems however that Apple do have some power or else the Russian government wouldn't have gone after Apple to censor the app. Censorship is just an other word for power abusing their position to limit the powerless. It is not about forcing people and entities to provide a service, its to prevent people and entities that holds power to abuse that power in order to keep others powerless. If that translated in a specific case to being forced to provide a service, then there is always a second choice. They can open up and give up the thing that gives them power. In the case of apple that would be to provide alternative ways to install software without tricks that keeps apple in power. It is an active choice of Apple to be the door keeper for what the captured users can or can't do with their own devices.
cma 5y ago
That effectively means they are banned from having notifications on iOS.
salawat 5y ago
You don't see a problem with infrastructure providers cultivating vendor lock-in in order to wield the ace-in-the-hole of deplatcorming when the time is right a problem? Given, it was Gab and Parker's problem for not going multi-cloud; but there is something specifically untenable to me about this whole "my entire infrastructure is now dead to you in 48 hours" sort of thing that Gab and Parler went through. Yes, it's a matter of contract law because they accepted the ToS as is, but I don't see anywhere that actually services alternative terms pipelines either.

paganel 5y ago

It was similar to self-censure from Amazon, that is if they wanted to still gain lucrative contracts with the military-industrial complex opposed by the candidate that they banned. To say nothing of the personal vendetta between the owner of Amazon and said candidate, the owner being the wealthyest man on Earth and directly controlling a big mouth-piece of the media (WashPo). The US is by definition an oligarchic state (the previous president was an oligarch, the current one was put in place by the oligarch enemies of the one before him).

hhhhdnxndn 5y ago
Do you really think the previous president and the current president are enemies?
- paganel 5y ago
  No, I don't think Biden and Trump are enemies, I do think Bezos and Trump are enemies. In fact I tried saying that but because English is not my mother language maybe it came out wrong.
ookdatnog 5y ago
> It was similar to self-censure from Amazon, that is if they wanted to still gain lucrative contracts with the military-industrial complex opposed by the candidate that they banned. Sounds like pure speculation.
- paganel 5y ago
  It walks and quacks like self-censure in view of future monetary (and not only) gains. Again, I'm surprised that almost no-one in here (to say nothing of the big media outlets) is not saying anything about the huge conflict of interest involving Bezos and the companies he owns and/or controls.
- nightwing 5y ago
  Don't you remember people from Google saying that it should not be broken up to be able to prevent "next Trump situation"? https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas/videos/2445258202376795/ https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVeritas/videos/2445258202376...
neonbones 5y ago
>The US is by definition an oligarchic state Yep, I saw a few types of researches before. The US is, by all definitions, an oligarchy. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

belorn 5y ago

To me the negative aspects of censorship is not exclusive to governments. It is any censorship when it comes from the powerful controlling the powerless in order to maintain that power relationship. Government vs citizen is one form of power relation, but so is dominating market holder vs user. A third is infrastructure vs user. Apple has decided to hold the power of being the gatekeeper of mobile apps. Every time they utilize that power they demonstrate the power relation that they hold over their captured audience. I could be cheering when I agree with their choice and get upset every time they do something which I disagree with, but in terms of power it the exact same thing. I rather choose to oppose the power itself.

ookdatnog 5y ago
I'm not disagreeing that there are megacorporations which wield too much power. I don't believe it's a good thing that Apple can decide what software you can run on the device you bought, and I don't think the often used security argument is sufficient justification. It would be better if there were other legal ways to install software on iDevices. But if there are other ways to install software, I don't really have any moral qualms with Apple moderating its own store. They can sell whatever they choose to sell, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of Parler specifically, I see no moral issue whatsoever because you can still access Parler through the browser. Apple and Google aren't blocking their users from accessing Parler, they're simply refusing to do business with them. Calling this censorship or a violation of free speech is, to me, confusing the right to free speech with an imagined duty of other people and entities to provide you with a platform.
- belorn 5y ago
  If there is no power relation then there is hard to argue an abuse of power. Since I am neither an iphone user, iphone developer or parler user/developer I can't know if such power relation exist. However could not the same be said about the app in the article? What does the app do that they can't do through the browser? If apple has no power in this relationship then the impact of the decision should be zero. It seems however that Apple do have some power or else the Russian government wouldn't have gone after Apple to censor the app. Censorship is just an other word for power abusing their position to limit the powerless. It is not about forcing people and entities to provide a service, its to prevent people and entities that holds power to abuse that power in order to keep others powerless. If that translated in a specific case to being forced to provide a service, then there is always a second choice. They can open up and give up the thing that gives them power. In the case of apple that would be to provide alternative ways to install software without tricks that keeps apple in power. It is an active choice of Apple to be the door keeper for what the captured users can or can't do with their own devices.

cma 5y ago

That effectively means they are banned from having notifications on iOS.

salawat 5y ago

You don't see a problem with infrastructure providers cultivating vendor lock-in in order to wield the ace-in-the-hole of deplatcorming when the time is right a problem? Given, it was Gab and Parker's problem for not going multi-cloud; but there is something specifically untenable to me about this whole "my entire infrastructure is now dead to you in 48 hours" sort of thing that Gab and Parler went through. Yes, it's a matter of contract law because they accepted the ToS as is, but I don't see anywhere that actually services alternative terms pipelines either.