Apple has threatened to ban Parler from the App Store • Hacker News Board

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

#771

Post by wilsynet » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:06 AM UTC

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…

Let me put it a different way.

It’s not that they’re being deplatformed; it’s that Parler violated the App Store TOS. Specifically Review Guidelines Section 1.1 - Objectionable Content.

And Donald Trump violated the Twitter TOS.

No one is being deplatformed, and it isn’t a left vs right thing. It’s reasonable that these companies enforce their TOS as they would against you or me.

There’s no Apple TOS for websites viewed in Safari. And Apple has not made it so you can’t access Parler through the web.

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

#772

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:07 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #641

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…

I'll be honest -- I haven't really seen any cases where someone was deplatformed for a legitimate political view. By that I mean a viewpoint that is at least tolerant, if nothing else. If the argument against deplatforming is that people should be allowed to heap hatred on gay people or other minorities, then it's not a particularly strong argument. Maybe this is just inherent to a conservative viewpoint, I don't kno…

[deleted]

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

#773

Post by arminiusreturns » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #641

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…

I'll be honest -- I haven't really seen any cases where someone was deplatformed for a legitimate political view. By that I mean a viewpoint that is at least tolerant, if nothing else. If the argument against deplatforming is that people should be allowed to heap hatred on gay people or other minorities, then it's not a particularly strong argument. Maybe this is just inherent to a conservative viewpoint, I don't kno…

I have seen it quite a bit over the last year in particular. Are the views being expressed popular? No. Are they "legitimate"? Yes. (what ever in the world that is supposed to mean, outside of being unlawful I would consider all speech legitimate even if I disagree with it, but not many people seem to like Voltaire these days I suppose.)

I'm very disappointed that the rhetoric has devolved into "but they all deserved it so it's ok"...

your filter bubble is showing.

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

#774

Post by cma » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #638

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, and they are powerless to stop it. Is it surprising that they are furious about it, and explode in unpredictable ways? Wouldn't you do the same? What did African-Americans do when they were marginalized for a century until the Civil Rights era of the 1960s? (And still are in many ways.) The folks you are referring to can say whate…

With any of those alternatives they won't be able to get notifications on mobile.

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

#775

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #691

SR2Z wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are against open borders? Then you’re a racist. Find me one Democrat with actual power advocating for open borders. And it's not as if the speech used by xenophobes is free of racial overtones and dogwhistles, either. > Are against abortion? Then you’re a misogynist. If you are against a woman's right to do what they please to their own body, you have to give compelling evidence for why. There is no such evidence.…

... a word that historically was used by people who started a lot of wars... That's us. USA starts lots of wars. We've still got, what, seven going right now? Maybe it's down to six? (Ummm... Iraq Afghanistan Syria Yemen Korea Palestine Iran well that's at least seven but I'm probably missing multiple wars in Africa...)

[deleted]

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

#776

Post by design-material » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Imagine: a leader calls for a certain racial, ethnic, or religious group to be barred entry to their country.

This is a textbook example of racist policies.

Half the population either

- voted him because of those policies (and so are racist),

- or were unbothered by those policies and voted for him (and so are not non-racist)

In earnest - is there any other conclusion than the above?

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

#777

Post by toast0 » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:10 AM UTC

macintux wrote: post #407

bstar77 wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Yeah, it’s increasingly obvious that the fable was wrong. People are easily led (and not just those who cling to Trump).

It's been a while since I read it, but don't quite a lot of people go along with it?

It takes a child to point it out, because everyone else is bought in to assuming the king couldn't be so foolish, so they must be mistaken.

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

#778

Post by rootusrootus » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

arminiusreturns wrote: post #773

rootusrootus wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be honest -- I haven't really seen any cases where someone was deplatformed for a legitimate political view. By that I mean a viewpoint that is at least tolerant, if nothing else. If the argument against deplatforming is that people should be allowed to heap hatred on gay people or other minorities, then it's not a particularly strong argument. Maybe this is just inherent to a conservative viewpoint, I don't kno…

I have seen it quite a bit over the last year in particular. Are the views being expressed popular? No. Are they "legitimate"? Yes. (what ever in the world that is supposed to mean, outside of being unlawful I would consider all speech legitimate even if I disagree with it, but not many people seem to like Voltaire these days I suppose.) I'm very disappointed that the rhetoric has devolved into "but they all deserved…

> what ever in the world that is supposed to mean

I defined it. Intolerance is not a legitimate viewpoint. It is not the expression of an idea, but the suppression of someone else's. I think I was pretty clear, I consider intolerance the one viewpoint we cannot tolerate. Everything else is fair game.

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

#779

Post by solipsism » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #273

throwaway3699 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree with you, though keep in mind that the previous version of the web worked great when it was run by engineers (that cared about silly things like freedom of speech) and not valueless executives.

Do you think decentralisation is the key? I’ve been thinking about it since yesterday and i’m leaning toward profit motive as the difference. We were pretty centralised around a few locations like slashdot & newsgroups. Walled gardens were a thing, here in the UK a service called CIX was popular but AOL is the big famous one. It’s not that we communicated less, group messaging with non-techie friends was done over em…

My guess is scale. Tens of thousands of users, versus billions of users.

Scale begets financial interest, btw.

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

#780

Post by kemitchell » Sat, Jan 09, 2021, 4:13 AM UTC

meekmockmook wrote: post #6

Parler, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were definitely used to storm Congress. Snapchat, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook also were definitely used to burn down parts of Minneapolis, Chicago, and LA. Massive Big Tech conglomerates must be busted through antitrust enforcement and Section 230 must be updated to ban predatory algorithms which have inflamed 7 years of sectarian chaos. It's not a free speech issue:…

I'm not sure how antitrust enforcement would address content problems. Assuming a social media network could be split off from a larger company as a separate line of business, the legal operating environment influencing its content moderation, algorithms, and so on wouldn't immediately change, just because the business was restructured. I'd expect far more fallout from the financial and operational ramifications, not all of which would be good, than any legal ones.

I'm still not exactly sure how Section 230 relates to any of the issues in public discussion. Only that it's good for the platforms, and some folks want to hurt the platforms, so Section 230 must go. I've seen at least one draft of a proposed bill for adding additional conditions to Section 230, but they reminded me, more than anything, of hypothetical First Amendment questions from law school exams. It's by no means clear that platforms, especially new platforms, will simply do whatever you tell them to do in a condition to Section 230.