Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

buzzfeednews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#341

Post by permo-w »

im3w1l wrote: post #172

Kicking out social platforms during quarantine is evil. This is the last way some folks have of talking to other people. There is no other word for it. Pure evil.

First of all, Parler has a website.

Second, cut the emotional language please, this is Hacker News, not Twitter.

Third, if Apple don’t want a certain kind of content in their store, that’s up to them. No one is complaining about Apple not allowing porn, or drug content in their store. They don’t approve of this unmoderated content either. That’s up to them, and it’s just as evil as not allowing pornhub to have an app

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#342

Post by guscost »

CraigRood wrote: post #228
guscost wrote: post #105

Remember “If you don’t like Twitter’s rules, you are perfectly free to make your own platform”? I suppose we are perfectly free to make our own pocket computers now, right?

These platforms exist for the purpose of capturing content that has been “deplatformed”. >Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views. Engage with real people, not bots. Parler is people and privacy-focused, and gives you the tools you need to curate your Parler experience. Parler frontpage. They have no intention of creating a real alternative to Twitter. Lets be hon…

You are twisting yourself into a logical pretzel to avoid answering.

And no, harmful content does not get you deplatformed if it harms the right people: https://twitter.com/chineseembinus/status/134724760209453465...

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#343

Post by gwright »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #230
o_p wrote: post #117

Imagine owning a phone that can only get content approved by Apple and can cancel you for any arbitrary reason. Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations, its ridiculous and yet the fanboys will defend their shitty practices no matter what

You're trying to skate over the difference between good-faith political debate and bad-faith encouragement of violence and sedition. Diverse dissenting views are fine. Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't. If the far-right can't operate without plotting armed violence - and there's plenty of evidence it can't - then it puts itself outside the reach of any free speech arguments. Not j…

> Plotting armed violence to overturn a legitimate election result isn't.

Not condoning any sort of violence or the riots from Wednesday but I think it is worth observing that the problem isn't that there are people who are trying to "overturn a legitimate election result". The problem is that there are people who believe that the election results were not legitimate. They are acting on that premise and so in their mind they are acting to overturn an illegitimate election result. Simply asserting that they are wrong will not change things, in fact it has a good chance of making things altogether worse as it simply emphasizes the grievance that their concerns aren't being addressed.

Resolving these issues isn't going to come from simply insisting that the other side is wrong. and it isn't going to come from disappearing Trump. Trump is not the source of the problem. Anything we can do to create extreme transparency and rebuild trust in our voting mechanisms would be a good start.

Even if we could magically convince everyone that the vote was 100% accurate as is, the result is still evidence of significant divisions in the American electorate. Resolving these political differences isn't going to be easy.

I'm not going to pretend to have some magical solutions to these divisions but we are going to have to find a better way to understand and mediate our differences. We need to find a way to rise above the tribalism that is growing stronger every day.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#344

Post by twiceaday »

nicbou wrote: post #11

Someone brought an interesting perspective in another thread and I can't shake it off. The other side keeps deplatforming them. Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. We're not even listening to them, because it's science and they're *ists if they disagree. We're not debating anymore. We just assume we're right. We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the populat…

This argument rests on swapping the meaning of 'them' from 'the loudest extremist Republicans' to 'the average Republican' half-way through.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#345

Post by dang »

Pxtl wrote: post #22

There's an amusing irony in the downvotes in this thread. The champions of free-speech angry that Apple might ban a platform for speech that ultimately led to an attempted insurrection? These champions of free speech seem to be agressively trying to silence anybody happy about this news.

Please don't break the site guidelines by going on about downvotes: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

This kind of seeming pattern is a gigantic Rohrschach blob in which people notice things based on their preconceived opinions and then backfit stories to them. Other people react based on theirs, and so we get the same exact flamewar as before, just on a meta level. Meta is internet forum crack. Flamewars on crack is bad idea.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#346

Post by rubyn00bie »

guscost wrote: post #329
anigbrowl wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was literally an attempt to prevent the Constitutional succession process from operating.

You are right that a few too many people actually had the idea that was a possible outcome. But the crowd outside was chanting “Who’s house? Our house!” and just celebrating. Then almost everyone left and did not defy the curfew.

Are you serious?

I'm sure plenty of Nazis fuckos were very polite before they shot someone. I'm sure that by your standards that would then be fine and acceptable; so long as they said, "please take of your hat" first.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#347

Post by giglamesh »

nicbou wrote: post #303
AsyncAwait wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but the other side of the coin is maybe the society at large is rejecting them. And they need to understand that they're not guaranteed an audience, If the society at large doesn't want to listen then they'll have to sloowly try to win some support. They seem to forget that many on the left fought tooth and nail historically for things we now consider for granted but society wasn't on board f…

If they were a fringe movement I'd be inclined to agree, but they're half the voter base. They can't possibly all be violent bigots.

Half of the voter base has not even heard of Parler, let alone would be silenced if it was held to minimal standards of accountability.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#348

Post by nackerhewz »

mullingitover wrote: post #238
WindyLakeReturn wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that ultimately led to This seems a very dangerous line of reasoning. For example, I wonder how many violent crimes alcohol ultimately led to. How many violent crimes Facebook ultimately led to. How many violent crimes encryption ultimately led to. In a court of law, there is a distinction drawn between different events leading up to a crime, with a great deal of thought put into which of those events can be held r…

The difference here will be the whether Parler was negligent. If they had calls for violence on their platform that were reported to them, and their community moderation team was so short-staffed that they didn't act on them, Parler could have culpability. Facebook, et al have moderation mechanisms that can probably withstand scrutiny, but Parler sounds like an extremely lean operation that the discovery process may…

So then it potentially becomes impossible to create a startup that replaces existing social networks due to moderation requirements. Facebook and twitter got lucky they didn't get killed this way in the early days. This is similar to the criticism on the EU automated copyright violation detect requirements.

If moderation laws essentially make it impossible to build new mass platforms, then that creates a very strong case for having rights to have unrestricted open access to existing platforms, does it not? For example, the networks then wouldn't be able to issue lifetime bans at their discretion.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#349

Post by systemvoltage »

Auracle wrote: post #106
systemvoltage wrote: post #38

It’s sounds dystopian but I want a complete crackdown of this trump nonsense. I don’t want my kids to grow up with these idiots nor do I want Trumpism ever to be anywhere near my family. Trump has destroyed America. Ban him from every platform.

In what way has he destroyed America? If anything has it’s people becoming less tolerant of those with political opinions that differ from their own.

He has systematically dismantled election process and trust in institutions forever.

Re: Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store

#350

Post by Laarlf »

u10 wrote: post #297
Laarlf wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesnt really have anything to do with Nazis. This was a few people who were really unhappy with their government and who actually stood up against that. Something to respect, even if you do not agree with their point. Because if they get caught, you can be sure that they will spend a few decades jailed.

I'm sorry, what? Why would I, or anyone with any shred of dignity respect people who were attempting to overturn a free, fair, and legal election using violence (there were individuals laying pipebombs, carrying weapons, and zipties !!!) ? They have every right to voice their displeasure, either at the Capitol or at the ballot box, not by hunting politicans and executing them.

There is a lot of evidence that voter fraud has happened. While i doubt that it would have made a considerable dent, the election was far from "free, fair and legal". The protestors intent obviously was not to slaughter politicians. That would have happened as a start. Showing the people that control you that you are displeased with their actions will do considerably more than "voting harder". Especially if their ballot just gets burnt.
Post reply on HN