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

501–510 of 1001 posts

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

#501

Post by tomp »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #362
tomp wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Personally I’d try by enforcing an exchange - limited liability status for speech restrictions - that way people can still “organize in corporations” - unlimited liability ones - but if they want extra privileges, they have to give up some of their rights.

If that won’t work, yeah, constitutional amendment.

Although there definitely exist a number of regulations that effectively restrict corporate speech - e.g. anti-terrorist funding legislation - so probably there’s other ways to do it as well.

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

#502

Post by chrischen »

Anon1096 wrote: post #430
chrischen wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were never part of public debate. They were just talking amongst themselves, showing each other what they wanted to hear, and validating their own beliefs in a downwards spiral towards eventual extremism. This is enabled by the internet more than any specific social network. It's like sending someone to prison and expecting them to turn into a law abiding citizen: hard when all your peers are also criminals. Now…

>They were never part of public debate. They were just talking amongst themselves, showing each other what they wanted to hear, and validating their own beliefs in a downwards spiral towards eventual extremism. Isn't the exact opposite true as well then? If one side is siloed, by definition the other side must be in an opposite silo. You've taken it upon yourself to define that your side is in the "public debate" and…

I'm not sure what side you think I'm on, but that's besides the point. I did not say what my side is, nor did I say that any other side is part of the public debate. A debate requires at least 2 opposing parties, so not sure what point you're trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that these people are not part of any debate, public or otherwise. There is flat out no "debate" happening because it's primarily involving a special group that has become the victim of internet and technology allowing the manipulation of information to control mass opinion. Nobody wants to have wasted their lives away playing Farm Ville, but Zynga's manipulation of technology sure is able to wrestle away that control from the common people. Likewise special interests were able to manipulate people at light speed by telling them exactly what they want to hear, and riling them up.

Propaganda is in the very nature of communication and because of the internet it has allowed special interests to capture the attention of potentially millions and instill extremist ideas. For free speech to work propaganda must be employed and countermeasures must be employed. Free speech doesn't mean giving equal weight to all ideas, just like equality of opportunity doesn't mean making everyone equal all the time.

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

#503

Post by mlyle »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #447
mlyle wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah. It's like, before the_donald was banned: at least there was a grownup in the room reining it in some and it could be seen. But if you wholesale kick out the extremists, they make their own happy place where there's nothing to slow them down at all. (And then, in turn, you end up playing wack-a-mole with those cesspools, asking Apple/Google to deplatform them, etc.)

The flip side of that coin is that it also makes it harder to recruit people from broader platforms. When the_donald left reddit, it became impossible for them to get their propaganda seen on the front page of reddit and seen by people who might join them. People won't casually stumble into a cesspool of lies and BS. Now they have to know it exists and actively seek it out. I just googled "the donald" and they aren't…

> I just googled "the donald" and they aren't even on the first page. Seems like deplatforming kind of worked....

If it worked, why is the same radicalized set of viewpoints seemingly growing in vitality?

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

#504

Post by tarboreus »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #362
tomp wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Use the laws on the books to make these companies public trusts, as was done to the large trusts in the 20th century. If there is real competition on these platforms, if there were many app stores, then this wouldn't be an issue. These five or six companies have too much consolidated power.

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

#505

Post by jldugger »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #461
jldugger wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, IRC can do the same damn thing in a federated way.

The messages in my IRC channel don’t appear based on how incendiary they are. They are a strictly chronological timeline with no “viral amplification”. Closest we had to that was people reshaping bash.org links.

I mean, I definitely recall the need to turn off unauthenticated DMs because of all the IRC bots recruiting racists to their "ChimpOut" network, which purported to ban black people. So it's not like you really need viral amplification to coordinate a rally, nor is it that hard to fake.

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

#506

Post by intended »

dakial1 wrote: post #493
hilyen wrote: post #109

People don’t seem to understand, censorship is a double edged sword. You never know who will be in charge years from now and will abuse those very same good intentioned laws & we end up a police state.

People don't seem to understand what censorship is. Nobody is threatening throwing them in jail for saying anything, platforms are just saying "your speech is not welcome in my platform". They can still say whatever they want it in the streets. If they want a platform for it they can build it themselves....

Both of you are correct. When I was a mod, I saw bots show up to automate removal of content - and there was simply no time to think or worry about the long term effects.

If you want to remove hate speech at internet scales, you are going to be creating lists of bad words and acting on it.

That also means that tomorrow, that same tech can be used to remove healthy speech and only amplify the worst kind of content that influences people.

We’re still going to use those bots though. The only thing I do more of is study what creates unhealthy speech in the first place.

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

#507

Post by colinmhayes »

zests wrote: post #439
caconym_ wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is “the other route”? They are being deplatformed because their speech is violent and damaging—in many cases it’s literal incitement to violence. Their legal cases are being rejected because they have no legal merit. The mainstream media refuse to take them seriously because they have again and again shown themselves to be bad faith actors, peddlers of unsubstantiated conspiracy, outright liars, and so on. I don…

How do you decide which of the violent and/or damaging speeches to deplatform? I see nothing done except “use tribalism to decide.”

Exactly what we're doing now. Democracy. The people vote with their wallet.

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

#508

Post by mzs »

>Anyone who buys an Apple phone is apparently a user. Apparently they know what is best for you by telling you which apps you may and may not use. Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler. Therefor by the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for.... Standards not applied to Twitter, Facebook or even Apple themselves, apply to Parler.

>>Jan 8, 2021

>>To the developers of the Parler app require your immediate attention regarding…

>>… intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store.

>>Your CEO was quoted recently saying l'But I don't feel responsible for any of this and neither should the platform, considering we're a neutral town square that just adheres to the law!' We want to be clear that Parler is in fact responsible for all the user generated content present on your service and for ensuring that this content meets App Store requirements for the safety and protection of our users. We won't distribute apps that present dangerous and harmful content.

>>We have now rejected your app for the App Store Review Guidelines detailed below.

* https://twitter.com/arawnsley/status/1347705034184777742

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

#509

Post by colinmhayes »

nicbou wrote: post #153
bjtitus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their legal cases are rejected. The mainstream media refuses to take them seriously. Well these last two seem pretty par for the course for illegitimate claims been promoted as legitimate. At a certain point the line of absurdity has been crossed at it is not the duty of society to constantly debunk illegitimate claims. > The other side keeps deplatforming them In this particular case, Parler has been host to a num…

Yes, that is what reddit, twitter and Hacker News reinforce constantly. It's either because it's true, or because the other side has been repeatedly discouraged from adding their two cents in those communities. I've been seeing the world through this lens for so long that I can't tell. I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I…

>I find it somewhat implausible that half the population is dumb, racist and all those other labels. It seems much more likely that I don't fully understand their perspective.

I don't think you've met enough people. Most people I've met are gullible idiots who are looking for excuses to believe nonsense.

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

#510

Post by colinmhayes »

koolba wrote: post #399
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 decid…

Nationalist is absolutely a bad word. Patriot is a good word. Nationalism is what happens when patriots stop thinking critically.
Post reply on HN