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

391–400 of 1001 posts

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

#391

Post by gamblor956 »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #261
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…

We already know from history what happens when large groups are disenfranchised from the public sphere. Violence. Lots of it. And once it starts, it's not easily stopped. Some welcome this because they think it can be managed for their own purposes. But once civil order breaks down, things simply accelerate with no possibility of talk being able to stop it anymore. It takes on a life of its own. Those who dream of th…

These groups became violent while still enfranchised.

And they're still enfranchised: they can still vote, and still post to the internet, and still talk to people outside.

They simply no longer get a free internet loud speaker to envangelize to others.

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

#392

Post by cabaalis »

tempsy wrote: post #107
zionic wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they though? Half the people here come off as oblivious to the problem.

I think so. I think we will see more investment in progressive web apps for mobile.

Sure. And then political pressure on CAs to deny certificates will take care of that. Or on ISPs to not transmit data from certain outlets. Or on registrars to delist domains. There's plenty of ways to de-platform.

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

#393

Post by chrononaut »

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…

Does that imply that people in the year 2000, before most of these platforms existed, couldn't participate in any public debate?

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

#394

Post by bobbobb54444 »

caconym_ wrote: post #374
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. "in defense of looting" And while I'm at it - why isn't China being deplatformed? They literally just posted on their embassy twitter account saying they fixed minority women who were "baby-making machines." One can only guess they mean sterilization. It's obvious who's allowed to be inhumane…

I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.

I don’t give a fuck about your comment, I care about the reality of the situation you fucking mongoloid

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

#395

Post by bstar77 »

mbesto wrote: post #373
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…

> We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate They didn't exist in the public debate to begin with. Social media opened that up. We're realizing just how negatively impactful a village idiot with a megaphone the size of a city block can be.

My mother read a book to me called "The Emperor Has No Cloths" when I was very young. The book is silly, but it stays with me to this day. Every time I hear my president repeat absurd, dangerous and divisive conspiracy theories, this book always comes to mind. Same goes for the supporters that defend him.

Public debate is fine, but we are watching a huge population of people absurdly follow this man in his birthday suit. People so easily "persuaded" deserve the (non violent) pushback they get.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

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

#396

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

spoonjim wrote: post #389
caconym_ wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can read quite clearly between the lines of your comment, but I’m still having trouble finding where in my comment I said that users calling for violence on social media should be exempt from sanctions if they’re left-leaning.

Also, beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being. They will use the word "violence" to describe both, rather than get into a definition war with them, just keep the distinction clear.

> beware the false equivalence between smashing a store window and stealing some crap vs. actually attacking a human being

Ok so I guess economic circumstances can never be oppressive.

So if a thieve steals all your stuff and you starve...that's not violence!

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

#397

Post by Nightshaxx »

gmac wrote: post #234
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…

> Their legal cases are rejected. Not-an-American here. When their cases seek to disenfranchise large swathes of voters based on zero evidence, what’s the alternative?

But there are some suspicious looking numbers and events that happened. I personally don't believe that they are true, but why not just investigate them? People distrust dominion voting systems; Just allow a bipartisan audit. People think certain votes were counted without both parties present; just recount those votes. Where is the harm in just being absolutely sure of things? If you just shut down people because there is no absolutely solid, undisputed evidence, they just think you are hiding something.

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

#398

Post by h_anna_h »

mbesto wrote: post #373
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…

> We are slowly squeezing a significant segment of the population out of public debate They didn't exist in the public debate to begin with. Social media opened that up. We're realizing just how negatively impactful a village idiot with a megaphone the size of a city block can be.

Media didn't exist in the public debate to begin with. The printing press opened that up. We're realizing with events like the one described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller how negatively impactful letting only a select few that are sponsored by the government to be part of the public debate.

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

#399

Post by koolba »

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…

They’ve been shifting the Overton window for years.

Are against open borders? Then you’re a racist.

Are against abortion? Then you’re a misogynist.

Are for a pro worker visa policy and tariffs on imports? Then you’re a nationalist (which isn’t even a bad word but they make it sound like one)

Are for the right to bear arms? Then you’re an uneducated hillbilly.

Are for churches and other religious institutions to decide for themselves if they remain open? Then you’re a religious nut job who thinks the world is flat.

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

#400

Post by AnimalMuppet »

wvenable wrote: post #312
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

> Its like buying a radio that can only listen to democrats approved stations That's actually how radio works! The stations are licensed by the government. This is actually much better as there is no government involved -- this is just a private company doing what it wants with the software and hardware that it owns -- and you are not restricted by the government to use only their technology.

I believe o_p meant stations that are approved by the Democratic Party. That's not at all how radio (or free speech) works.
Post reply on HN