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

361–370 of 1001 posts

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

#361

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

splaytreemap wrote: post #276
subsubzero wrote: post #165

I don't understand what people don't get about the 1st amendment. A right to free speech, is set in stone in the US Constitution, a private company can enforce their own censorship, but having a company that wants to have the 1st amendment and is being forced to be shut down is not what the US is about. Threats and actions to commit treason should be handled by authorities and prosecuted. But someone saying they don'…

Pouring gasoline on the fire is kind of the point. Take away people's option to peacefully voice their opinion and violence is the only remaining option. The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence.

> The hope is that these people will commit more violence so that the government can use the violence as an excuse to criminalize their existence

honestly the government is always happy for reasons to broaden their power to surveil

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

#362

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tomp wrote: post #308
lovecg wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It would be very dangerous if people in charge, say, prohibited Apple (a private company) from removing Parler. Thankfully, the 1st amendment is still in power and Apple is free to express itself as it sees fit.

Not really, no. It just requires recognising that corporations are not people and thus don’t deserve freedom of speech protection. especially big corporations, which should definitely be considered “serving the public good” and therefore under even greater scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has recognized that corporations are just ways of organizing people, and those people do have free speech rights. I’m not sure how this could be changed without a constitutional amendment. Unless you have another suggestion?

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

#363

Post by tw04 »

disruptalot wrote: post #310
tw04 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd posit two things: Who on earth says they need or deserve a "public channel to express themselves"? The world seemed to get by just fine before social media existed, and I have no doubt we'd all be perfectly fine if it were gone tomorrow. If the white supremacists are stuck going back to physically mailing letters around and struggling to organize that's a net win for society... Where exactly did you come to the c…

> Who on earth says they need or deserve a "public channel to express themselves"? This is prime "Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee". You're making a very easy generalization. Not any significant portion of people expressing themselves contributed to any of the events you are mentioning. It's funny because you can read the exact same thought process from the opposite side, against say the BLM protests.

>This is prime "Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee".

That was a pretty bold assumption on your part, and couldn't be any further from the truth. I don't participate on Twitter or Facebook, and I'm getting by just fine. Somehow I don't feel my freedom of speech has been in any way limited. So I can tell you with 100% certainty that you can in fact get by just fine without having a "public channel to express yourself".

>You're making a very easy generalization. Not any significant portion of people expressing themselves contributed to any of the events you are mentioning. It's funny because you can read the exact same thought process from the opposite side, against say the BLM protests.

It doesn't actually matter if it was "a significant portion" - they allowed the organization of what became a violent protest and will likely be de-platformed as a result. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private companies. I have literally no idea what BLM has to do with any of this other than you're making another poor assumption that I'm OK with violent protests if it's by a certain group. You'd be wrong.

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

#364

Post by bebopcowboy »

ENOTTY wrote: post #262

There are a lot of posts on Parler calling for violence, which violate Parler's terms of service. Parler itself doesn't appear to have strategy for moderating these posts. Apple's ultimatum demands Parler implement a plan for enforcing its own terms of service, and reduce the probability that Parler is used to incite violence.

There are a lot of people on Twitter calling for violence, Apple and Twitter don’t care as long as it’s directed at the right people.

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

#366

Post by detaro »

deelowe wrote: post #157
mmastrac wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are spewing a constant stream of hatred and disinformation. Nothing of value was lost here.

Here's a direct quote from someone I'm close to: "I don't agree at all with those people storming the capital. This does not represent who we are, but what do you expect when the media claims not a single voter fraud case was won in court when in fact almost all of them never went to trial? They are lying." Nearly half the nation voted for Trump. I don't believe half the nation is full of hatred and disinformation. N…

If your lawsuit doesn't even go to trial (for a variety of reasons), you clearly haven't won it. Unless you win a lawsuit, "haven't won any of their lawsuits" is 100% true. And the media did report on sme of the lawsuits being thrown out, but I'm sure they would have found something wrong with reporting that too. Or should the courts just suddenly start entertaining invalid lawsuits just so Trump lawyers don't look as incompetent? (And from reading up a bit, multiple courts have judged on merit and found that the claimants didn't provide compelling evidence for their claims)

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

#367

Post by Acrobatic_Road »

vladTheInhaler wrote: post #302
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming nobody has ever called for murder on Facebook or Twitter? By your line of reasoning those apps should be taken down too. We know for a fact that Facebook and Twitter have been the direct causes of far more numerous deaths than Parler. How do you reconcile this view?

Because Twitter and Facebook have policies against doing those things, and they enforce them. That's why so many right-wing extremists complain about being "de-platformed" - they're mad that Facebook isn't letting them agitate for martial law, the kidnapping of governors, etc.

They don't seem to care when blue checks empassionately call for the murder of trump supporters

Still up: https://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/article_big/s3/2021-01/Arthur...

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

#368

Post by dang »

anigbrowl wrote: post #231
BurningFrog wrote: post #207

Of course you can organize serious crimes on Parler. But that's also true of telephony, postal letters and in person conversations. Uncountable murders have been organized through those channels! Does that mean those means of communication should also at least be monitored, and maybe banned outright? If not, what is the difference?

The difference is network effects; the other examples you mentioned all involve communications between individuals or small groups. I'm pretty sure this has been explained to you before.

Please omit personal swipes from your comments here. Your post would be fine with just the first sentence—it's a good point and deserves to stand on its own.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#369

Post by bebopcowboy »

FireBeyond wrote: post #202
ALittleLight wrote: post #63

Some of the screenshots seem objectionable, e.g. the one that wanted to burn down Pelosi's house while she was still inside, others seem like opinions, e.g. the one saying the protester shot by police was murdered, but none seem particularly bad, where "particularly bad" means "worse than content I'd find on Twitter". Seems inconsistent to me to ban Parler and not Twitter. Also seems undesirable for a phone manufactu…

https://twitter.com/slpng_giants/status/1347609631527489537 > Many of Us will return ... carrying Our weapons. ... We will come in numbers that no standing army or police agency can match. However, the police are NOT our enemy, unless they choose to be! > I hope the cop gets doxxed and murdered. That would be the only real justice. > Federal swine most definitely. Dozens of them need to be eliminated. >> All

These are basic calls for violence that twitter checkmarks get away with daily. Twitter doesn’t care if it’s directed at the people that they want dead.

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

#370

Post by mullingitover »

nackerhewz wrote: post #348
mullingitover wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not difficult to create new social media platforms. They're created all the time.

If your newborn community attracts so many bad actors that they become such a drag on your business that you can't operate because of the liabilities the create for you, you are a victim of these bad actors. You're not the victim of a functioning legal system.

Post reply on HN