Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store • Hacker News Board

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#491

Post by MrRiddle » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:39 AM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #381

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?

Easy. Tech giants have means to control all public speech and information exchange. -> they ally with political party -> ensure they win elections, fairly or whatever, no one will be able to tell the story that votes are counted unfairly -> install an unremovable authoritarian dictatorship. Which might have imitation elections & stuff, just like USSR had. And then, 'correction' camps for people that do not fully fit…

That’s just the start. We’ll start seeing tech giants introduce “Partner API” for allied political parties in other countries. And soon enough there will be a world centralized government.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#492

Post by systemvoltage » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

bun_at_work wrote: post #468

rrose wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously can't identify with this viewpoint. There's no censorship here- parler still exists, people are still free to share their (abhorrent) viewpoints there, Google is just choosing not to amplify the voices of people that have proven themselves capable of and prone to violence. All the pearl-clutching over free speech is totally overblown.

This is accurate. Just because you have to go directly to the website doesn't mean it's censored. Google, Apple, FB, Twitter, etc are not in the business of supporting outlier extremism in our society. Claiming censorship because they don't want to platform that stuff is ridiculous. Imagine a Jewish-owned store being forced to sell nazi paraphernalia because not selling it is censorship. The users of parler or gab ar…

Or it dismantles the way they will organize with weapons to the next destination they seem unworthy of Trumpism. Could be a place like the U.S. Capitol.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#493

Post by ccleve » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:40 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #267

djsumdog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…

How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?

That's a false choice. They're both bad.

Don't be so cavalier about what's being lost here. The right to think and to speak freely is a fundamental human right.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#494

Post by serf » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #267

djsumdog wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…

How can the bans (being de-platformed) be more horrific than the actual violence that's occurred?

by inciting more violence through disenfranchisement of desperate individuals.

it's a pretty common occurrence, historically.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#495

Post by mhh__ » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:41 AM UTC

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #435

mhh__ wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well where did they then? Find me a reference to something from a three letter agency, and I'll believe you. You're skirting around making the allegation via a rhetorical question. If you're trying to pin something on me, keep in mind that I'm not even American, let alone a Democrat.

Many prominent voices were guilty of spreading the conspiracy. Here's one analysis: https://news.ku.edu/2019/10/15/dangers-saying-russia-hacked-... "Those on the political left who play fast and loose with the term “hacked,” as in “Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election,” are aiding the Kremlin in its mission of undermining Americans’ faith in the democratic process, two University of Kansas researchers write i…

I can't read the article you've linked.

> Neera Tanden So one person subject to an extremely obvious narrative-driven article by someone who clearly has an agenda on this issue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald#Donald_Trump_a...

Her tweets are stupid, but quite frankly her response to Greenwald he shows in his own article is a fair response.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#496

Post by betenoire » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

sillycon-valley wrote: post #188

betenoire wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't need an app to think for myself

Yeah you can think in the corner and noone will hear you like you don't exist. It's about having a voice. It's about the main argument being "it's a private company" then going and banning the alternatives.

I don't have a right to be heard, that's not what free speech is. I also don't have the right to insist on other people publishing my views for me (corporations are people now, remember). And I certainly don't need to feel validated by apps.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#497

Post by adkadskhj » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:42 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #132

post_break wrote: post #4

Wow, is this the great purge? I don’t support certain people, but man I don’t think this is going to end well. This censorship just seems crazy to me.

The purge has been happening for years. I hate how people on HN is praising this. There are literally few alternatives for the average person apart from Google and eyeProducts. I have a PinePhone, but what percentage of America can truly put in the effort to use one? If you cannot install an run your own software on a device, you do not own the device. You cannot praise the removal of Gab or Parlor now and complain l…

I disagree. This is great, because it illustrates the problem you're citing.

Without this use case people won't realize why open source matters, or phones without control matters, etcetc. While i don't agree with Trump or his party actions, this definitely is waking thousands of people up to how easily even Americans are censored.

This realization is crucial to privacy focused applications, imo.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#498

Post by valuearb » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #396

anonacct38 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If wal-mart stops selling a brand of ice cream, is that censorship? Is it censorship that wal-mart doesn't sell playboy in their store? If not, then why is the removal of an app from the app store censorship? The world wide web still exists. Parler is still on the internet. Seems like there should be some acknowledgement that there's a difference between refusing to actively participate in distributing content and ce…

When Hollywood voluntarily removed certain movies and ideas during the black list it was justified for the same reason these bans are justified: these ideas are harmful to society. And it was deemed censorship. In fact it’s an archetypal example of censorship. Government action isn’t required unless you’re talking about the 1A. And this is yet another escalation on the road that started with “we’re just going to cens…

Hollywood isn’t a monolith, and it didn’t “remove movies or ideas”. Hollywood production companies and theatre chains agree to set standards for film ratings in order to access large audiences. Artists almost always have had the ability to release unrated films, at the costs of access to large funding sources and theatre chains.

That’s freedom in both directions.

At its worst Hollywood created a black list for alleged communist sympathizers. That was a very specific kind of rating system for the same benefits. Most Americans were justly terrified of the Soviet Union and its genocidal leadership at the time, and distributing a film written by or starring someone who publicly endorsed communism would have killed box office and likely had the studio boycotted by large anti-communist groups.

That said, the black list unfairly included lots of people who were at most interested in social justice.

Today the same thing has happened to Mel Gibson and us happening to Johnny Depp. Don’t expect your employers to invest their millions into help you promote repugnant behavior or beliefs to their customers.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#499

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #229

danijelb wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the government should be able to force your business to do something against your will? That doesn't sound like free market of which USA, and particularly conservatives, are so proud of.

The FDA forces food standards. Should the government really be able to prevent a farm from cutting your meat with sawdust? Should government really keep pharma companies from selling you pills that are filled with snake oil? Should a government really force you to allow black people to eat at the same tables in your restaurant as white people? It's your business after all and it's private. You should have a choice on…

The above poster does have an important point: Freedom from speech also includes freedom from compelled speech.

The things you listed entail selling materially defective good, and discrimination on the basis of race and gender. These are not examples of compelled speech. Here are some more applicable questions:

* Can the government force Hacker News not to flag and hide certain posts?

* And the government make a bookseller to stock certain types of books?

* Could Trump pass a law or executive order to make Twitter revoke his ban?

* Can the government official compel a newspaper to print certain content?

The last one was actually addressed in a Supreme Court ruling [1].

Freedom of speech includes freedom from compelled speech. It's also against the law to tell a person or business to print or say something, or not ban certain content. Sure, if a business exclusively bans content based on the race of the poster they they could fall afoul of anti-discrimination laws. But note that it wasn't the content of the speech that matters here, it is the discriminatory nature on the basis of race.

These protections don't magically go away when a company grows to a certain size or number of users. Market share is relevant to things like anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior, but the people claiming that Facebook or Twitter have to run content because they're big are incorrect.

The exceptions to protection from compelled speech are very narrow, like showing your passport at the border and nutrition labels on food or health warnings on cigarettes. They almost always have a direct and tangible safety or administrative justification. Furthermore, political speech is the most protected form of speech in the US by far. I would be astounded if we ever pass legislation compelling platforms like Facebook or Twitter to host content against their will.

I agree that the principles of inclusion and freedom of speech should be upheld by Facebook and Twitter, but I strongly disagree that they should be enforced by the government. I could see wisdom in making ISPs, payment providers, and DNS providers act like utilities and extend services to all lawful customers, but not at the application layer.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v....

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#500

Post by usrusr » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

klodolph wrote: post #461

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a big point. I feel it’s acceptable for google to remove whatever they want because android allows you to install the apk directly. IMO apple should either be forced to allow side loading apps or to accept everything within reason to the App Store.

You can already side load apps on iOS, you just need to go through some hoops (install Xcode, compile the app, create a developer account, futz about with certificates) but you don’t have to pay any money (you don’t have to pay the $99/year, that’s only necessary if you want to sell apps).

Well, at least you have to purchase another device from them to run xcode on. Those 99$/a aren't the biggest hurdle of you aren't a Mac user. (even assuming a skillset that includes "futzing about with certificates")