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

801–810 of 880 posts

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#801

Post by FDSGSG »

dmantis wrote: post #799
FDSGSG wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Payment processings are monopolies. More precisely, oligopolies. See how easily Mastercard and Visa drop PornHub payments after the news paper article. It's not a court order or even a trial. There is mainly zero way of doing business without fully government controlled banking entry-points. Yes, there are cryptocurrencies available, so if we can fully legalize it and promise that we don't touch anyone's private tran…

This is bizarre. You offer cryptocurrencies as the alternative for Mastercard and Visa. How about bank transfers?

It's perfectly normal in Europe to pay for your ecommerce purchases with a bank transfer directly to the merchants account. There are thousands of banks out there, there's no monopoly or oligopoly at play.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#802

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

anonacct38 wrote: post #151
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.

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…

Give me an ability to buy ice cream in a different store, and I would have no problem with that. However, on Apple devices you are locked to AppStore, and modern Android devices, while still giving you an ability to sideload apps, have severe limitations on their functionality without access to google play services (chiefly, push notifications are a must for any communication app)

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#803

Post by vimy »

blake1 wrote: post #791
vimy wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 only one of these links which focuses on Democrats is the first one. Assuming the highly-edited video fairly represents the speakers’ contexts, they are calling for street demonstrations. If the events on the 6th had remained in the streets, we would be in a very different place. None of your links has anyone, much less a democrat, calling for the forcible occupation and disruption of a major part of the governme…

> Please provide a source for your claim that Democrats encouraged riots.

That was the question I answered. I've showed that the left, which is most of the media and the democrats, encouraged the riots and set the precedent of using violence to achieve political goals.

(Local) democrats demonized the police as enemy of the people. Kamala Harris encouraged her millions of Twitter followers to donate to a Minnesota crowd-funding effort that paid bail for accused rioters. Both local and national media rigidly only referred to the far-left rioters as “protesters.” The Associated Press, which sets guidelines for journalists, amended its stylebook to discourage use of the word “riot,” given protesters’ “underlying grievances.” It took months before Biden condemned the riots and he only did it when he started to drop in the polls. In Portland BLM/Antifa rioted for months and they even tried to storm into a federal courthouse downtown several nights in a row. The respons of the mayor wasn't to condemn the riots but to tell Trump to take his “troops” and leave. Those showing righteous indignation now only months or weeks ago argued that the riots were “mostly peaceful” and that vandalism and looting don’t count as violence.

And it seems people have forgotten it's not the first time government building have been occupied to prevent a vote.

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/134710749813463040... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests

My point isn't to defend what happened but to point out the hypocrisy and double-speak.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#804

Post by jakelazaroff »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #790
saithound wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The medium has nothing do with free speech. Sorry, didn’t notice my post got messed up.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#805

Post by mbreese »

lenkite wrote: post #678
jude- wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the current anti-discrimination laws, political affiliation is not a protected class. Religion, race, sexuality, etc., however, are.

Interesting, I didn't know that. So a business can actually deny a service depending on political affiliation. Of-course this can be challenged in the courts. Well, unless, it's protected by 230.

Anything can be challenged in the courts. And I believe there are some (limited, mainly religious based) exceptions that are pretty recent. But there is nothing that protects the political beliefs of a person as this isn’t a protected class. Protected classes protect things people are, not what they think.

Trying to conflate 230 here is disingenuous and has no role in a strictly business decision about whether of not a business has to accept a customer.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#806

Post by mumblemumble »

roenxi wrote: post #674
mumblemumble wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone's prominently displaying white supremacist imagery on their torso, it's hardly putting words into their mouth to characterize them as a white supremacist. When people wear imagery and slogans to any demonstration, I afford them the courtesy of understanding that what they're displaying on their bodies is part of the message they want to communicate.

Mr. Viking hat probably isn't an entire protest, even if his horns are intimidating. And even as a group the people storming the capitol probably don't represent most of the protestors, typically the bulk of protests are law abiding and peaceful and there are just a few bad eggs looking to cause trouble. The core of the protest is electoral integrity and calls for the politically marginalised to have a voice, not rac…

The stated purpose of the protest was to "take our country back" from the democratic majority.

That's not a few bad eggs. That's an enormous crowd of people all deciding, tacitly or not, consciously or not, that democracy isn't for them anymore. And phrases like "take our country back" aren't even subtle; anyone who's been paying attention recognizes them as dog whistles. The obvious indication is that this crowd believes the votes of the democratic majority are not legitimate because they came from people who aren't entitled to run the country. And, while we can certainly spend an entertaining afternoon sealioning about particular examples, it would be easier to just take a look at some of the wide angle shots of the crowd. The crowd is clearly communicating exactly who they think isn't entitled to have a voice in how the country is run, either explicitly by holding flags and banners, or implicitly by consenting to be represented by the people holding the flags and banners.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#807

Post by camel_Snake »

smaryjerry wrote: post #770
adkadskhj wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While i hear you - i don't see this as an isolated incident. I see this as the inevitable result of radicalization that this President has pushed for four years. Shockingly when you flat out say that "They're only sending there criminals" (with regards to Mexico) it has affects on how some people view and thus tread Mexicans and/or brown skinned peoples. Repeatedly, examples similar to this have been expected by the…

I think the point is that the “radicalization,” as you are calling it, actually resulted in fewer deaths than say a typical day in Chicago. The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved. When there 20 death in a weekend the law makers don’t give a damn, it’s not radical, it’s just the norm, but when a couple deaths are close to a lawmaker then they care. It is har…

> The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved.

Not entirely true. Much of it is just plain old politics. This was a massive unforced-error by the President, many of his supporters in congress, and his fanatical base.

Do you recall how many years we heard about Benghazi? How many hearings, investigations, and committees there were? This incident was objectively worse than Benghazi. If the Left were as good at offense as the right, this Jan. 6th attack on our government will be investigated, examined, dissected, and discussed incessantly for at least the next 4 years.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#808

Post by camel_Snake »

djsumdog wrote: post #591
Pils wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have Android, iOS and PinePhones. I mean, Parler is a CRUD app. You are posting a comment on another CRUD app that doesn't even have an official mobile app client!

How do you do notifications from a CRUD app on a mobile device if you can't have a native app on the device? Let's not kid ourselves. People rarely use the browser for something they really like on mobile if there is a native app. The experience is very different.

> How do you do notifications from a CRUD app on a mobile device if you can't have a native app on the device?

Can't service workers/PWAs handle this? While the UI may be subpar, they still have total access to it.

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#809

Post by whiddershins »

wnevets wrote: post #517
whiddershins wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, we’ve had nonsense like that all over the internet for decades. Liberal pundits are saying similar about conservatives ... elected officials call for disruption in the street, 4chan has crazy stuff, yaddha yaddha. We have incitement and conspiracy laws. We have an FBI and Secret Service that really take this stuff seriously and are well financed. If anything these posts make it easier for them to keep an eye on t…

>Ah, we’ve had nonsense like that all over the internet for decades. and how many times has that led to storming the US Capitol building with guns and bombs?

Never. That’s my point. Why change the entire way we manage the internet based on one incident after decades of relatively little problems?

How do we know the capitol thing wouldn’t have happened anyway?

Re: Google suspending Parler from the Google Play store

#810

Post by smaryjerry »

camel_Snake wrote: post #807
smaryjerry wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that the “radicalization,” as you are calling it, actually resulted in fewer deaths than say a typical day in Chicago. The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved. When there 20 death in a weekend the law makers don’t give a damn, it’s not radical, it’s just the norm, but when a couple deaths are close to a lawmaker then they care. It is har…

> The point is this is all blown out of proportion simply because law makers themselves were involved. Not entirely true. Much of it is just plain old politics. This was a massive unforced-error by the President, many of his supporters in congress, and his fanatical base. Do you recall how many years we heard about Benghazi? How many hearings, investigations, and committees there were? This incident was objectively w…

Look up the Portland protests from earlier this year. Hundreds literally stormed a federal building attempting to light it on fire, throwing fireworks, Molotov a, and other objects all-night. The protesters dressed up in outfits with gas masks, helmets, lasers, and much more. That building was some how protected from people but the capitol building couldn’t be? Not only that but it was literally not on any of these major news sites anywhere. The mayor literally went out to protest with them yet nothing happened to him. No bans, nothing. But some how here the death was by the police shooting the protester and some how this is violent? I’m not kidding look up Portland courthouse protest, it is mayhem for months but no one cares because it wasn’t the right party.
Post reply on HN