Hmm how different is this fundamentally from the ability to report police locations (speedtraps) in Google Maps?
There were no terrorist attacks on traffic cops lately.
Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
101–110 of 140 posts
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#102Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please direct me to the general computer in a phone form factor that isn't some fiddly Linux gadget. What e-reader doesn't allow side-loading books?
> sideloading books This madness is straight out of Right to Read [0]. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I understand why some people have a negative reaction to the word "sideloading", but to me it just means acquiring media from a place other than the manufacturer's official channels.
On Debian, compiling software from source or installing a deb you downloaded via a web browser would be "sideloading".
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it? The key difference is businesses / people making choices and the government coercing businesses / people to make choices the government wants. One is a first amendment violation, one is exercising the first amendment.
A company with significant coercive power (through sticky market effects) is much better thought of as a governmentesque censoring entity rather than some mere group of individuals exercising their individual speech. What you're describing is not a virtue of the first amendment, but rather a shortcoming of its implementation and a subsequent failure to properly regulate corporations/LLCs/etc. OP is right - people's r…
This is a long winded way of ignoring the fact that this is government coercion, something the 1st amendment was designed to prevent. What you're talking about is _not_ something the 1st amendment was designed to prevent.
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it's removed due to the chilling effect of the government attacking our first amendment rights this gets murkier. Do you think they make this choice if the regime weren't going after their political enemies?
Yes, I believe they would have removed this app during the Obama and Biden administrations if it had become associated with political assassination.
This hasn't happened.
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lol - exactly - why do people expect the politics or broader principles of Steve Jobs to be any good?
The dude literally tried to cure his cancer with fruit. There would probably be an RFK edition iPhone.
his reality distortion field became too powerful and backfired on himself
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#107I’d say this is a perfect candidate for a web app / PWA.
Government will just hijack the domain as they have with torrents and other things they don't like Am working on a mobile app that requires in person keygen/sharing via Bluetooth, syncs selected data between devices once keys exchanged and new local IP is shared (over something like Signal; discovery is hard/expensive so I am going with a low tech manual option to notify peers how to reconnect) Flood the field with a…
That sounds like a nice setup for decentralization.
I've long thought people should just fork DNS. This already sort of happens with ad blocking commercial services, but I'm thinking it might be time for something that runs over a mix network, where devices have multiple trust roots for DNS services, and run a quorum computation when there's disagreement.
Ideally, disagreements between the roots could be escalated to a web browser UI.
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#108Earlier source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45468219
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a free market the consumer always has a choice between companies doing censorship and companies doing censorship.
How many times are we going to re-litigate this? Until there’s a law requiring side loading options, you have the web. Everyone here was totally fine with the “gay cure” apps being pulled.
there's a difference between not allowing very harmful hatespeech and saying something like "I saw a cop at this address"
yes, the web exists, and while it's not functionally preventing all possible phone access to the app, it's increasing the barrier to entry in a way that meaningfully massively reduces its use
Re: Google removes ICE-spotting app following Apple's ICEBlock crackdown
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
A company with significant coercive power (through sticky market effects) is much better thought of as a governmentesque censoring entity rather than some mere group of individuals exercising their individual speech. What you're describing is not a virtue of the first amendment, but rather a shortcoming of its implementation and a subsequent failure to properly regulate corporations/LLCs/etc. OP is right - people's r…
This is a long winded way of ignoring the fact that this is government coercion, something the 1st amendment was designed to prevent. What you're talking about is _not_ something the 1st amendment was designed to prevent.
No, I am most definitely not ignoring or downplaying that.
> What you're talking about is _not_ something the 1st amendment was designed to prevent.
Yes, in fact I explicitly acknowledged it as a "shortcoming of its implementation".
What I'm taking issue with is your whitewashing corporate censorship as "exercising the first amendment" in your first comment.