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

Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

play.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#651

Post by dragonwriter »

ardit33 wrote: post #600
dragonwriter wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tim Cook and apple are being the arbiter of all speech/content Well, yeah, Apple sells curated experiences. And people choose whether or not to buy those curated experiences. > and this is very similar to autocratic countries No, it's not.

You are not getting the point. I am fine with apple removing any app it doesn't like from their app store, as long as you can sideload an app to iphones (like you can do with Android). The fact that you can't sideload, it makes it worrying as one exec has all the power on what you do with your phone.

> You are not getting the point

No, I'm disagreeing with your point.

> I am fine with apple removing any app it doesn't like from their app store, as long as you can sideload an app to iphones (like you can do with Android).

Sure, I have the same preference, which is why in my household there are 7 actively used Android devices and zero iOS devices.

People with different preferences purchase Apple devices.

> The fact that you can't sideload, it makes it worrying as one exec has all the power on what you do with your phone.

If you choose to give them that power over your phone with your purchasing decisions.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#652

Post by ivojp »

ceph_ wrote: post #418
Thorentis wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seem to remember another group calling for the killing of politicians and cops recently. Huge protests, rioting, burning down police precincts. Some three letter acronym I can't remember...

Its amazing you can take the message of "cops shouldn't kill people" and spin it to be about killing the cops. It's a view of the world detached from reality.

It doesn't take any spin to get that message from the graffiti all around Portland; it's pretty explicit about what to do to cops.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#653

Post by ng12 »

bun_at_work wrote: post #599
danijelb wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with breaking up companies which are monopolies/duopolies. But why do you think that those broken up companies wouldn't behave the same in this case (ban Trump, Parler, etc). If that's what the majority of users want, then such decisions increase their profit. If there was 5 mobile OS/store companies today, I'm pretty sure the same would happen on all 5.

If that's what the majority of their users want, why shouldn't they ban those services? What better proxy is there for what they should do? Aren't they beholden to their users and shareholders? Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority? That doesn't seem like a good strategy.

> Is the suggestion that all platforms have to cater to the most vocal minority?

I think this is what they're doing right now. I'd imagine the average voter doesn't care whether Trump is on Twitter or Parler is on the App Store.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#654

Post by jedberg »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #271
jedberg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does illegal content look like? What jurisdiction? Does Parler need to hire a lawyer to make content decisions? When Trump says "we need to fight hard!", is that illegal? What if he says, "Go back to the Capitol and start shooting!"? Is that illegal? FWIW that was our policy at reddit for a long time too. There is a whole lot of nuance to it that is really hard to deal with.

Unbelievable you’re getting downvotes @jedberg, probably one of a handful of people in this conversation with actual hands-on experience.

Thanks. Sometimes people don’t appreciate real world experience. It’s ok, I’ve gotten used to it. I appreciate when others speak up for me.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#655

Post by FDSGSG »

SpaceRaccoon wrote: post #601
valuearb wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t possible without government control of the underlying components of the web, such as domain system. Otherwise private persons and companies can always create their own domain providers. Yet you seem to advocate more government control. You see the dichotomy in your thoughts?

Hasn't breaking up monopolies been a central tenet of ensuring a free market since forever? Suddenly you defend monopolies. Interesting, isn't it?

There is no hosting monopoly, there is no payment processing monopoly, there is no domain registration monopoly, there is no SSL CA monopoly.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#656

Post by beirut_bootleg »

Darmody wrote: post #603
beirut_bootleg wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a moderation team that deals with these. It's on the users' to report them. You can't expect moderation to catch 100%. GP is the one who is cherry-picking.

Like this one https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330 ? Threatening with violence if Trump appointed a new SCOTUS. He has almost 300k followers. The tweet is not deleted and his account is untouched. There are several more like him, with hundreds of thousands of followers. Some deleted the tweet but their accounts are still there. But we could go even further. The VP-elect, Kamala Harris, asked for m…

Alright, I'll give you that one, but "Twitter should have never banned Donald Trump's account so he could continue to incite violence and instruct people to burn the country down" just doesn't vibe with me.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#657

Post by dragonwriter »

scruple wrote: post #650
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " How would you feel if the government censored you, infiltrated your gatherings, and sidelined you from mainstream society? " It already happened to the left before and it was called the Red Scare of the '50s. It is strange to see the modern left dig up those old repressive practices and adopt the for their own but "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" I suppose.

The Occupy movement was targeted and that was barely a decade ago.

African-American civil rights activists have been targeted pretty consistently for...well, most of American history, really.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#658

Post by amanaplanacanal »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #243
danijelb wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real censorship means that the government prosecutes you for speech, no matter where or how or to whom are you saying it. That was happening in parts of Europe from 1945 to 1990. This what is happening in USA right now is nowhere near that. It's just free market. If you're banned from a certain platform you can reach your audience in another way. No one is censoring your speech. It's just a certain company not wantin…

I made this comment in another thread but I think we are few year from it being forced by the Supreme Court as it has ruled very close to this in the past. > ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are inv…

There are more recent cases that go the other way. I don’t think that ruling is as expansive as you think it is.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#659

Post by andrewvc »

kristofferR wrote: post #361
andrewvc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run a social network and can’t keep up with moderation for calls for violence you shouldn’t be allowed to be in business. This goes for the big tech companies as well. “It’s hard” is not an excuse.

So you want AI censorship? Hundreds of hours of video is uploaded to Youtube every minute, you can't have people to watch it through all. Twitter has thousands of tweets a second. It's impossible to manually moderate social media platforms by your standard, it's the whole point of Section 230. You remove disallowed content when it's discovered. Parler deletes illegal parleys when are notified, they deleted parleys fr…

Real creators could pay, what, a dollar or five to fund the moderation of their youtube videos. Same for facebook etc.

The idea that every social network deserves to exist on terms that are economically preferable to their owners is not some golden rule. These networks didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#660

Post by FridgeSeal »

vimy wrote: post #445
blake1 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide a source for your claim that Democrats encouraged riots. To the best of my recollection, no one encouraged riots, except for extremist groups like the “boogaloo boys.” Certainly no mainstream political party encouraged violence this summer. I’d you want, I will provide a source that Republicans encouraged violence this year.

Two minute compilation video: https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJvHNANAIPq/?igshid=z8afgms2mds... This thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1346937852970483714.html Insane articles like this: - https://www.npr.org/2020/08/27/906729976/police-declare-port... - https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178... - https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/blm-looting-prote... There's much more but I'm no…

The last 3 things you linked:

1. Given BLM was protesting mistreatment and institutionalised racism (especially in the police), do you not think it’s at all plausible that the police response would be racially-charged in how they respond to the protests?

2. The headline it’s literally says “one authors controversial view...”: it is entirely reasonable to entertain an idea for the purposes of analysing it without actually advocating it.

3. “In defence of destroying property”: this is inherently ideological I think, I for one place human lives above that of mere materials, and if people need to smash some windows in order to make their voices heard that is ok: we can repair windows, we can bring unjustly-murdered people back from the dead. Maybe a better way of framing this particular one is in reverse: “why is a window shop-front more valuable/important than someone’s life and human rights?”

Edit: Twitter thread: conflating “we wish to overthrow the government and kill our opposition” with “please stop killing us; we will make these protests more uncomfortable until we are heard” is disingenuous at best, and a flat-out mischaracterisation at worst. Nelson Mandela spent time in prison as well: does that mean nothing he said has any value?

Post reply on HN