4 ms·
It’s perfectly legal, but also perfectly legal for a corporation to choose not to sell or distribute a particular software application.
by nsxwolf 1y ago
It’s perfectly legal, but also perfectly legal for a corporation to choose not to sell or distribute a particular software application.
- codedokode 1y agoIn a free market the consumer always has a choice between companies doing censorship and companies doing censorship.
- nsxwolf 1y agoHow many times are we going to re-litigate this? Until there’s a law requiring side loading options, you have the web. Everyone here was totally fine with the “gay cure” apps being pulled.
- Amezarak 1y agoMost people also seemed to celebrate Parler and Gab being pulled/denied. It was perfectly obvious that the same logic could be used to do things like this, but many people seem to be totally surprised or oblivious.
- myko 1y agoThe difference is the government's hands in such actions
- Amezarak 1y agoWe've had multiple leaks and reports that the government was directly involved in these censorship cases prior to January 20, 2025. So no, that's not the difference. On this very forum, people (not you) argued it was perfectly acceptable because the government was only "asking", not requiring. Unfortunately, the civil libertarians have been drowned out for years by people who believed that it was right to do whatever it took to shut down right-wingers/misinformation/disinformation/hate speech/Russian propaganda/conspiracy theorists/Hunter laptop posters/whatever. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are shocked and outraged, even as they built the tools, institutions, mechanisms, and political support used to do this.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 93po 1y agothere's a difference between not allowing very harmful hatespeech and saying something like "I saw a cop at this address" yes, the web exists, and while it's not functionally preventing all possible phone access to the app, it's increasing the barrier to entry in a way that meaningfully massively reduces its use
- nsxwolf 1y ago“I saw an abortion provider at this address”
- 93po 1y agothe difference is there is an implicit call to violence there and it's private people, not representatives of the government. the idea behind the ICE agent tracking is to avoid them. you don't need to avoid abortion providers, they're not sneaking up on people on the street and giving them abortions. someone doesnt need ICE tracking apps to attack ICE agents, they're wearing vests with giant "ICE" text on them. that someone allegedly misused the app in this way is like saying we need to ban knives because someone used one to stab someone else
- UncleMeat 1y agoI have no problem saying that good things are good and bad things are bad. The idea that nobody is allowed to have content preferences is ridiculous and not actually a thing that anybody believes.
- noir_lord 1y agoYep and one day maybe we'll get one on mobile devices. Today isn't that day alas.
- Waterluvian 1y agoNot sure you intended the double positive but I think it’s funny and apt.
- codedokode 1y agoIntended.
- Hizonner 1y agoIt is not legal for the government to induce a corporation to do that with threats of unrelated, bogus litigation, enforcement fishing expeditions, interference with the legally required government contracting process, or the like. Since the Trump administration has a consistent, well-established pattern of doing all those things, we can all assume that's what's going on.
- myko 1y agoWhen it's removed due to the chilling effect of the government attacking our first amendment rights this gets murkier. Do you think they make this choice if the regime weren't going after their political enemies?