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

781–790 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#781

Post by TimJRobinson »

mzs wrote: post #99

statement* from google: "In order to protect user safety on Google Play, our longstanding policies require that apps displaying user-generated content have moderation policies and enforcement that removes egregious content like posts that incite violence. All developers agree to these terms and we have reminded Parler of this clear policy in recent months. We're aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks…

What are decentralized social apps (such as manyverse) supposed to do about this? Are they just never allowed in the play store?

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#782

Post by pldr1234 »

rrose wrote: post #233
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.

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.

You have to discern what people here are really outraged about - and sadly, it's not free speech or constitutional rights or any real high principle. Those are just intellectual cover.

After all, you don't see people clamoring in shock and about "unsettled" feelings regarding the moderation that happens here on HN.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#783

Post by pldr1234 »

roberto wrote: post #9
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.

It's not censorship, it's free market. These are private companies.

Exactly this. If I start a private enterprise, I'll be damned if somebody dictates that they have a private right to do or say some particular thing on services I pay hosting for.

Corporations are not beholden to pleasing every single individual.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#784

Post by setr »

wnevets wrote: post #740
setr wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that’s all you’re looking for, then just check the responses section of the tweets you linked... https://twitter.com/EthanKrue/status/1347374487117946888 (Re-)Storming the whitehouse on Jan 20, planning on twitter.

Send me the links to the replies you think are bad.

I don’t understand, isn’t that what I did? Or I suppose, a link to a reply with screenshots of tweets clearly posted to Twitter?

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#786

Post by cujo »

drtillberg wrote: post #182
nathankunicki wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newspapers and magazines have always had a choice who or what to print in their papers. TV and radio stations have always had a choice who or what to air. Why shouldn't social media companies have the same liberties?

There was no "network effect" deterring me from dropping the NYT. These social media platforms, and the internet in general-- which are entirely "private"-- are the new public square. Twitter, Facebook, et al just excluded leading conservative voices from the public square.

What makes these companies the "new public square"? Some threshold for use? Is the "real" public square no longer the public square? If FB/Twitter/etc, are the public square, then the government should own them, right? Or does this mean private property can be a public square now and deserves protections because of it?

If I build the biggest coffee shop my small town has ever seen and it becomes ridiculously popular, is it the new public square and I'm no longer allowed to kick out people for being assholes?

This "big website is popular so now we must treat it as public space" is a take that I see kicked around but has lots of holes in it.

Frankly, it makes smells like bullshit.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#787

Post by cujo »

drtillberg wrote: post #529
jkelleyrtp wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not a public square. They are not the government. They are a private company that needs to do business to stay alive. Other companies can choose not to do business with them based on the content that's on their site. If they fail to satisfy their customers, they die. They cannot satisfy the whims of those who pay nothing and demand a megaphone. They owe you, and your beliefs, nothing.

Civilized (and sometimes boorish) people today go to the Internet to communicate. That's what we're doing right now. Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from. FB and Twitter are the modern public fora however, they have through moats or whatever business tactics, made other fora far less significant, and in terms of discussion space they are a very big…

> Maybe if you (or I) were banned from HN, no big deal, find some other corner of the Internet to shout from.

So is the premise of your argument that we should be protecting the less internet savvy from having to learn how to browse the web?

Give me a break. FB/TW shouldn't be required to uphold the public's ability to communicate.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#788

Post by cujo »

saithound wrote: post #769
jakelazaroff wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that free speech absolutism requires that child pornography be protected speech.

There are good arguments against free speech absolutism, but this is not one of them, since child pornography IS protected speech in the US. You can write a book of poetry that has entire chapters featuring Achilles and the Tortoise raping babies in patently offensive detail. If Congress tried to pass a law that bans your book, it would easily pass the Miller test, and the Court would tell them to think again. Heck,…

So, you're saying that anyone can write an entire book on overthrowing the government and sell it on amazon, but Twitter has silenced however many million people? It sure sounds like there are easy avenues for people to share ideas.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#789

Post by rvanlaar »

archagon wrote: post #685
djsumdog wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pearl-clutching Pearl clutching? Odd. I've heard people say that all summer long about those afraid of the "peaceful protests" turned violent riots that burned down cities and devastated business. This violence was encouraged by all types of politicians on the left and all the big media networks as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eQzLcO5qhY A small number of people at an almost entirely non-violent rally, a…

Dude, there were pipe bombs and militia boys with guns and handcuffs. The rest of the crowd aside, I’m pretty sure this was supposed to be a show. Not comparable. We were close to a congressional decapitation on live TV.

Have you heard about Portland and the riots there?

They made shields, set a police station on fire, etc, etc. Much worse than the current situation was.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#790

Post by jakelazaroff »

saithound wrote: post #769
jakelazaroff wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that free speech absolutism requires that child pornography be protected speech.

There are good arguments against free speech absolutism, but this is not one of them, since child pornography IS protected speech in the US. You can write a book of poetry that has entire chapters featuring Achilles and the Tortoise raping babies in patently offensive detail. If Congress tried to pass a law that bans your book, it would easily pass the Miller test, and the Court would tell them to think again. Heck,…

Here’s another easy test: say the government bans photos of something innocuous, like cars, but allows text to be written about them. Take a photo of a car, go to jail. You can write a book about racing, though. Free speech?

Of course not. The medium

Post reply on HN