Google Suspends Parler From App Store; Apple Gives 24-Hour Warning (buzzfeednews.com) 652
New submitter yuvcifjt writes: As of Friday 6pm EST (11pm GMT), The Verge reported that Apple and Google are under pressure and receiving complaints to deplatform Parler -- the social media platform favored by the right-wing and extremists -- from their app stores. BuzzFeed has since broken news that Apple has served notice to Parler's executives to implement a full moderation plan within 24 hours or risk being taken off the App Store.
"We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property," Apple wrote to Parler. "The app also appears to continue to be used to plan and facilitate yet further illegal and dangerous activities." Google issued a similar ultimatum, although it suspended Parler from its app store until it implements a moderation plan that addresses "this ongoing and urgent public safety threat."
"We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property," Apple wrote to Parler. "The app also appears to continue to be used to plan and facilitate yet further illegal and dangerous activities." Google issued a similar ultimatum, although it suspended Parler from its app store until it implements a moderation plan that addresses "this ongoing and urgent public safety threat."
This news brought to you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile Leftists don't hesitate to justify tyranny, to silence their political opposition.
Calling them terrorists, associating them to any small group's actions, how could they speak back when they are deplatformed wherever they once had a voice?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Classical liberals now silent...
Because we've been deplatformed on social media. We foolishly bought the left's argument that "if Twitter bans you, just set up your own platform..." Today's secondary boycott by both app store owners has closed off that option too.
Re:This news brought to you... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not a healthy situation. Those with no voice can only scream.
We're in a thread in which it's clear that we're talking about the silencing ongoing in the USA. The people being targeted for silencing are very clearly people like Donald Trump who have been calling for and supporting terrorism, including targeting explosive devices against the Republican National Comittee. The calls on 4chan (where Donald Jr and Eric are known to be active) for serious attacks with explosives and guns have been ongoing for months and Donald sr. has been echoing those posters repeatedly with related messages.
If you are unable to separate yourself from these people then you are collaborating with terrorists. Even if you just set up a platform and happily encourage them to use that platform, you know what you are doing and you are a terrorist sympathiser. The worst thing is that, by setting up normal platform with civilised and sane libertarians and/or conservatives, you are also corrupting them and making it difficult for them to communicate.
Separate yourself from the terrorists. Find ways to identify who is who. Make sure that your organisations and forums are not infiltrated by the enemies of America and her Allies such as the Trump family. Otherwise you hold at least partial responsibility for any collateral damage.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This news brought to you... (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling them terrorists
...is incorrect. They are insurrectionists.
how could they speak back when they are deplatformed wherever they once had a voice?
Parler still exists. You can still install the app on your Android device if you sideload it, presuming that Parler makes the app available through other means. If they don't, they're censoring themselves. You can also access it via their website. No deplatforming has occurred, even for Apple users when and if Apple bans the app (where there's no sideloading.)
Typically low-quality AC comment. Disregard.
This is just the begiining in ending free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a Trump supporter. I never have been. I find his many of his views to be deeply objectionable. And I deplore all violence and destruction of property, particularly the assault on the Congress.
However, I am also quite aware that sometimes the backlash to a horrendous event goes overboard. It happened with 9/11 and the Patriot Act. It happened in Turkey after the attempted coup in 2016. It happened during the French Revolution when counterrevolutionaries tried to reverse the democratic republic and bring back absolute monarchy. But that backlash led to the Reign of Terror. It happened during the US civil war with Sherman's March to the Sea, when he arguably committed war crimes and became one of, if not the first example of total war, that eventually led to the atrocities of WWII. It happened during WWII when the USA interned Japanese-Americans and thereby violated their civil rights.
Advocating and coordinating violence is wrong and illegal, and actions must be taken to prosecute the people involved. That is not too difficult. If appropriate even the President Trump can later be prosecuted. There is a clear and present danger legal test best enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1919.
But that does not mean that much of the rest of what I consider to be mostly repugnant Trumpian commentary is illegal. You have the right to offend. In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-N$z$ group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. It has since given up on genuine free speech for all and now only believes in free speech for some.
There are lot of people who have been banned from Twitter and Facebook and Parler was one of the few places where they could present their views. But it's not just Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google that are censoring free speech. Simon & Schuster canceled from its summer line-up of new releases Sen. Josh Hawley's (R-Mo.) book The Tyranny of Big Tech.
Simon & Schuster did not directly accuse Hawley of being one of the mob who attacked the Capitol. Its beef was ]the pro-Trump way he’s been shooting his mouth off in recent weeks. He was the first senator to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s victory as he trafficked in preposterous theories of election fraud. Of course I think he spread lies. But freedom of speech means you can say things that are not true.
Various Congressman and senators have put pressure on tech companies to censor speech on their networks and this gives the lie to the idea that free speech is only lacking if the government stops it. Well putting pressure on companies including financial and regulatory pressure is simply a backdoor to censorship. Authoritarian regimes such as in Egypt and Turkey use this clever ruse of manipulating private ownership of the media to suppress free speech all the time.
Some will say that we are just talking about private companies. But the reality is that we are moving away from paper based speech. If there is no practical way to disseminate your views (if you are not close to being a billionaire) then free speech exists on paper only (pardon the pun). We recognize that public utilities form natural monopolies and realize that traditional market forces do not work. Consequently we insist they supply certain universal services. Similarly a few large tech companies are coming to dominate the world of the dissemination of ideas. With smartphone in the USA, it's basically Google and Apple and if they both ban an app, then for practical purposes it does not exist. We need to insist that they allow all legal speech on their platforms because they are de-facto monopolies.
There are huge double standards in play too. During the past summer Antifa and a small minority of BLM activists indulged in rioting, looting and wanton violence. Most of the media and the leaders of the Democratic Party framed that particular wave of lawlessness as “pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yes, there certainly were. The police put up very little resistance to the mostly white thugs, while peaceful protestors were "kettled", then gassed. Reporters were targeted. The level of force used against BLM protestors was a couple of orders of magnitude more violent than what we saw today. On Wednesday, the police found time amongst the havoc to arrest a reporter who was doing no more than recording the events.
A policeman was killed. Where are the "Blue L
Re: This is just the begiining in ending free spee (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it amusing that you presume to know my politics, despite me stating that I donâ(TM)t support Trump. Your conspiratorial mindset mirrors that of the far right. But you are blind to your own prejudices.
As to the summer protests, the mainstream media did everything it could to use the word âoepeacefulâ and yet far more violence occurred than did at the Capitol. Democratic politicians in large part glossed over blocks set ablaze. Local politicians in those cities did address it though beca
Re: This is just the begiining in ending free spee (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason people are calling you a Trump supporter despite you saying you're not is your post comes across as massively biased. Take for example:
As to the summer protests, the mainstream media did everything it could to use the word Ãoepeacefulà and yet far more violence occurred than did at the Capitol.
Let's say you had 15 million protestors and in that there were 1000 violent ones. Now let's say you had a group of 1000 protestors and 500 were violent. Well in absolute terms the former has more violence. The BLM protests were immense. The estimate is somewhere between 15 and 26 million protestors in total. The BLM protests can easily have a larger amount of total violence while being at the same time much much more peaceful on average because they are much bigger.
Equating the absolute number of the two despite one being much much much larger makes you sound pretty biased. The vast majority of the BLM protesting was peaceful. Of those arrested quite a number were unaffiliated opportunists using large protest to indulge their violent proclivities.
https://apnews.com/article/vir... [apnews.com]
In no way do I condone the violence at the Capitol or itÃ(TM)s implicit advocation by the president. I donÃ(TM)t like him, or most of his policies. But I do note that the media is full of the words ÃoetreasonÃ, ÃoetraitorÃ, ÃoeinsurrectionÃ, ÃoeriotÃ, ÃoemobÃ. They used deliberately inflammatory language and see the perpetrators with a contempt that equals or surpasses Islamic terrorists.
Are you denying it was a mob and riot? Do you not think trying to change the president by violent means is insurrection? It's clear you don't like the way the media is describing these people despite one being able to argue it's factually accurate. What descriptions would you prefer, that don't actively downplay what they did?
Now if you do, you get called called names and are attacked. It *is* possible to be entirely appalled by President Trumps behavior (and policies) while also worrying about a backlash that goes to far.
So far there hasn't been any indication of a legislative backlash.
Re:This is just the begiining in ending free speec (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent is currrently rated as 0 Troll.
HOW THE FUCK IS A REASONED 50+ LINE POST A 'TROLL' ?!?!
MODDING DOWN IS NOT FOR THINGS YOU DISGAREE WITH.
Slashdot is broken.
Re:This is just the begiining in ending free speec (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the right to offend. In 1978, the American Civil Liberties Union took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-N$z$ group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived.
A march is not speech and that was clearly not something a civilised country should allow.
But it's not just Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google that are censoring free speech.
Posting on someone else's platform is not a "free speech" issue. If you want to post racism on my computer you can forget it; buy your own.
74 million people voted for Trump. They too have grievances and by denying their leaders the ability to articulate what they feel, you create a tyranny of the majority.
Tyranny of the majority is almost always better than tyranny of the minority. Both should be avoided but Trump has got where he is by lying about just about everything under the sun. What you're proposing is a tyrany of lies, which is worst of all. The similarities between Stalin and Trump are disturbingly clear.
In particular, Stalin (and Hitler's) trick of denouncing actions that your opponents have not done and then immediately doing those same things is something very characteristic of both Trump and Stalin. The fabricated allegations become a justification of "fighting fire with fire", even though there was in fact no fire at all. Similarly, neither Hitler nor Trump managed to get the most votes in any election but still believed in their own inalienable right to rule.
The AP told its reporters not use the word "riot" even when city blocks were set ablaze.
Citation needed.
In New York State the sale or display of Confederate flags, swastikas and other “symbols of hate” on state property is banned under a law signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo despite the fact that such a law violates free speech protection under the U.S. Constitution.
Nope. Again, you are free to do what you like on your own land. This is not a free speech issue.
I am sure that what is considered "hate" now will be vastly different to how that term is defined in 2031.
And as long as you are free from governmental regulation to be hateful on your own server/land/TV Channel, then that's not a problem.
Prof Anne Glover, a former chief scientific adviser to the Scottish government was forced out forced out by Jean-Claude Juncker because she correctly asserted that such crops were safe. The scientific community was outraged that a scientific advisor was sacked just for stating scientific truth.
Glover's sacking was more complicated than she claims; some parts of the scientific community believed her and were outraged; some did not and weren't; most didn't notice or care. Additionally, some of her claims about GMOs were flat out wrong and demonstrably so; some were simply implausible.
I have seen other cases where scientific evidence or facts cannot be openly discussed because many people object to such ideas being discussed.
This has, unfortunately, been the case since the invention of science.
Yes President Trump has said and done some horrific things.
Trump has been, and probably still is, trying to overthrow the constitution of the United States. And, just like Stalin would, he's doing it by claiming that someone else is. The difference is that he has no evidence whereas we have all seen him doing it - case closed. The man is a traitor and should be facing the chair.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, stop comparing Trump to Hitler or Stalin, he and his supporters will complain a bit, but mostly bask in the comparison. I think it is more appropriate comparing it to Ayatollah Khomeini. They both got to power by riding a wave of pretend righteousness, and are followed sometimes religiously by zealots with unclear and uneven beliefs.
Re:This is just the begiining in ending free speec (Score:4, Interesting)
But the reality is that we are moving away from paper based speech. If there is no practical way to disseminate your views (if you are not close to being a billionaire) then free speech exists on paper only (pardon the pun).
I find this sort of argument rather weak. Freedom of speech does not imply that it is is easy to disseminate your views or that some company has to permit you to state your views with their equipment.
When the first amendment was created, if you wanted your speech widely disseminated you had to own a printing press or at least have a friendly printing press willing to print what you write. There was (as today) no right to go any owner of a printing press and demand that they publish something you wrote. So in 1789, one could have written that there was no practical way to disseminate your views unless you were a rich publisher. Today, just about anybody can set up their own web site and publish their views - and with some effort reach a fair number of people. While perhaps some limitations exist (e.g. the host provider might not like hosting illegal content), the restrictions and cost of such publishing are really pretty low compared to historical standards.
And, like paper ballots, paper flyers will always be available. Just fire up your copy of your favorite text editor and start printing with a laser printer. You personally can probably have a larger audience with just those two tools (plus perhaps a car to drive to the places where you want to distribute them) than the vast majority of the population did in 1789.
Note: I do not doubt that there are significant problems with the concentration of power in companies like Facebook, etc. But that concentration of power has nothing to do with freedom of speech. They can't take that away from you (but maybe they will make it a bit harder, but that's your problem, not theirs). They aren't actually limiting what you can say anyway. They are just limiting what you can say on their platform, which is no different than in 1789 or any year since.
Re: This is just the begiining in ending free spee (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to very angry, and once I saw your âoeyou foolâ comment I realized that wasnâ(TM)t much I could say to engage you. But for the sake of everyone else.
1. The NY state law banning the sale of hate materials on state land is unconstitutional l. Iâ(TM)m not going to give a whole treatise why here. But to quote from a recent new article:
âoeThe First Amendment generally protects the expression of even hateful speech, and a statute banning the sale of materials expressing those views on state-owned land is highly likely to be held unconstitutional,â said attorney Floyd Abrams, who has argued frequently before the Supreme Court in First Amendment cases.
2. My point about free speech limitations was not to enunciate the exact cutoff just to express in general terms that there be a very proximate danger. The current standard - that unless speech is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action it is permitted- falls along a similar standard albeit a narrower exception. You are just being pedantic. My point is that organizing violence is a crime and a reasonable exception to free speech. But when itâ(TM)s not an imminent threat, we need not worry.
3. Apparently my denunciation of the violent riot in the capitol building was not comprehensive enough for you leading to the âoeyou foolâ comment. My point was not to analyze all the different manifestations of their misbehavior. You are merely ranting.
4. â But they're inevitably either complete bullshitâ(TM) - you say that about Trumpâ(TM)s voters. Imho this is the crux of the issue. They are increasingly extremely right wing. And you form the opposite end of the spectrum. They are not all evil or all deluded. â for one find it quite difficult to be sympathetic to people so cruel, so stupid...â(TM) - your utter contempt is part of the problem of any ability of our country to get something accomplished. You spew hatred upon them. Ironic that when the left engages in literal hate speech, itâ(TM)s ok.
One of their key complaints is that the left looks down upon them. And indeed you do. You exemplify why they voted for Trump. Indeed were the left to show more of an interest in their values, grievances, and desires, some at least would vote for different candidates. You are othering them in much the same way that people used to of a different race.
5. You justify Shermanâ(TM)s March to the Sea and wish there was more. I donâ(TM)t know what you think of the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 on Japan or the bombing of Dresden. The left used to have deep qualms about those actions because they too were war crimes (potentially). In the 19th century there was no welfare state. If you had all your food and cattle taken, your house burnt, and your possessions stolen, you would likely starve. Many died. Without shelter life was very short too. Does it occur to you that the harshness created a backlash after the war?
At least conceive of the notion even if you boil with hatred at the southern states. Perhaps you are right that more war crimes and mass slaughter may have helped bring about civil rights earlier. But you are saying that the USA should have committed atrocities to secure civil rights. Itâ(TM)s rather a huge contradiction! And historians note that such actions followed by the Russians in Circassia in the late 19th century created precedents for the Armenian genocide that began the horrors of the 20th century.
I detect such anger and hatred in you that Iâ(TM)m not surprised that you would limit the first amendment. The left is the rising power. Trump and his minions are history. Demographics alone have guaranteed that as has a political realignment. Allowing them to communicate will not endanger our democracy. Each presidential election they will gain a lower percentage of the popular vote. It is the hard left which is the new danger.
Iâ(TM)m reminded of Tzarist
Re: This news brought to you... (Score:3)
But he did that because he didn't believe he had COVID or let it "win".
The plus side is this... (Score:2)
They might end up nuking all of social media.
Too much to hope for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll do anything to hush their opponents up because they can't defeat their arguments.
What makes you think it has anything to do with that? It's merely a desire not to associate with others. Which is, ultimately, something that people have a right to do in nearly all respects. And further, to be open about it and to insist on the platforms exhibiting the same kinds of standards.
For example, if someone wanted to talk to me about how space reptiles living in the hollow center of the earth secretly control the world, I would refuse to engage with them because they're clearly half-crazy, half-st
Re: (Score:3)
The hazard to free speech comes from the bottlenecks. Twitter, Parler, FB, etc all provide choke points that don't have to exist. What we need is asynchronous, mass communication that amounts to an updated NNTP, where you can subscribe to any source you like and ignore any source you don't.
Those of you who are cheering when your opponents are gagged are fucking idiots if you don't think it will ever happen to you.
-jcr
You're a moron. I would LOVE for it to happen to me. As soon as I incite riots and sedition I WELCOME MY SILENCING. FUCK YOU.
Re: (Score:3)
The next thing to ban?? (Score:4, Interesting)
It won't survive (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm gonna get slagged for this, but I've got Karma to burn. This is inevitable because right wing ideas just plain don't work. The core of the right wing is a mix of Ayn Rand's hero worshiping Objectivism and a fanatical adherence to free markets. Neither of those work in practice. In the real world people with merit get bought out or destroyed by people with generational wealth. Then they corrupt the markets. Meanwhile the need for large standing armies to protect nations means you can't have a small government. You need a large civilian gov't to manage and control the military you use to keep other countries with militaries from coming and taking all your stuff.
So where's this leave the right wing? Well, their ideas don't work in the real world, this means any nation that adheres to them falls apart. So the people in charge, in order to preserve their wealth and status, turn to bigotry and wedge issues to keep the masses from demanding reform; and inevitably the right wing turns to racism (or some other form of Bigotry, see the Japanese Burakumin) to maintain right wing ideology in the face of failed policy.
So sooner or later the entire movement gets taken over by racists, and unless they manage to seize control of society as a whole (which they do with frightening regularity throughout history) they keep getting banned. All these bans we're seeing right now are just that process playing out as normal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: The economy does better under Dems (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats absolutely recognized his legitimacy. There were no lawsuits claiming election fraud. Saying that his views and actions don't represent them is not about legitimacy, but nice trying to twist it into some false equivalence.
He was impeached, so those charges were not bogus.
Re: (Score:3)
The "silent majority" is neither silent nor a majority, and what just happened was a fascist insurrection attacking the capitol building. It it included luminaries who wore slogans literally glorifying the holocaust, as well as the wild men and the militia types wearing tacticool gear.
Those guys are the extremist authoritarians bent on overthrowing democracy, with the chant of the Big Lie on their lips. They are a danger to themselves and everyon
Re:It won't survive (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you hold up communism as a more robust system, with its current world record of 71 years before falling apart (1918 to 1989)? European social democracy, about the same (post WW2 to present)? Switzerland's semi-direct democracy, inspired by the US although infamous for producing Swiss banks (1848 to present)? Or the United States, 230 years and hopefully still counting?
Honestly, your fiction sucks, and you deserve to get slagged over it. Communists killed far more millions over the last century or so than the right-wing racists you paint as a problem, and immiserated an even greater number. But you don't admit the end point of left-wing extremism, and you probably do not recognize how similar the current environment is to the early stages of many communist revolutions.
You're strawmaning (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just it, there's too much change too fast. Marx underestimated the speed of progress. He wasn't Hari Seldon. So his theories didn't work. That said, they were theories. Like any theory that is wrong we shouldn't just throw our hands up and shout "Welp, that's it, nothing's possible, nothing can ever improve, back to the Dark Ages with us lot!".
I'm a Progressive. That means I favor progress. At the moment that means strong Democratic Socialism with the goal of creating a kind of "Super Citizen" who is extremely well educated, intelligent, doesn't fall for dumb schemes, etc, etc. Given what we know about the rate of scientific progress and how things played out since Marx that seems to be the correct answer.
I'd like to think that the people here on
Re:It won't survive (Score:4)
The claim was not "I don't like this way of governance". It was that right-wing systems inevitably devolve into corruption and racist abuses. The argument ignored that left-wing systems have the same failure modes, and that they additionally do not have any long-lived counterexamples. For example, the USSR was terribly oppressive to many minority groups, and fell apart; China continues to be terribly oppressive to minority groups, had to undergo huge reforms to avoid failure in the past, and still has massive problems with corruption. The argument is deeply dishonest because it does not even try to apply the same standard of judgment to different systems of government.
As a parallel example, is it a sound argument to say that one should have voted against Joe Biden because his family members sold influence and access, and this always happens with Democrats? Or is that a lousy argument without addressing the similar complaints against Donald Trump's family?
There's a difference (Score:3)
That's the other problem with the right wing, they've already given up. There's a joke among us lefties about it: "Just got back from the big Centrist Rally, so Amazing. Thou
Re: (Score:3)
Safari (Score:3, Insightful)
When are Apple going to be removing Safari?
It too can be used to access objectionable content or to plan illegal activity.
Re: (Score:3)
When are Apple going to be removing Safari? It too can be used to access objectionable content or to plan illegal activity.
I'm almost sure that the actual phone part of cell phones can be used for that too.
I suggest that we ban iphones.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Selfishness? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't pretend to really understand the events that have occurred in the USA recently - exactly what makes people support a person who is clearly immoral and mentally unstable. A person who probably hates most the people who support him, considering them "low class".
But my underlying theory is that the level of selfishness in wealthy democracies has reached epic proportions, making this situation possible.
Mobs get whipped up for all sorts of reasons - many of them entirely legitimate.
In this case, however, the mob has been whipped up because their man lost a free and fair democratic election (well, as free and fair as it can be...).
The main rally cry seems to be along the lines of "freedom". ... do anything we want! - and "Screw You if you don't like it!"
Freedom to not have to wear a mask. Freedom to carry firearms. Freedom to
Freedom to tear down democracy because you don't like the result?
In other words, people prepared to tread all over others to get what they want, using Freedom as an excuse.
"It's a dog eat dog world, the fittest survive, it's freedom man!"
To me, this is what so much rhetoric from the so called "right" stands for - pure selfishness.
It's a base instinct that is effectively taking humans right down to a base level. "Keep your hands off my stash, or I'll fucking shoot you, man!"
There's some insane baggage along the lines of "Protecting ourselves" - yet so many of the "foes" are bogeymen, propped up stories, fabrications and outright lies.
As humans, we should be better than this - and indeed, we are. The ratio of bad apples to 'not bad apples' tips in the favour of the latter, but as everyone knows, keep enough bad apples in a barrel for long enough and the rot sets in.
Slashdot is pro censorship now? (Score:3, Insightful)
LMAO (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really REALLY funny that the same people who routinely reject the idea that private companies should be forced to do business with or hire LGBT, cater to low income people, charge fair interest rates or basically do anything socially helpful rather than just raking in as much cash as they can suddenly shout "THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!!!" when their pet app gets kicked.
If you (and you know who you are) really believe businesses should be unregulated and free to do whatever the hell they want, then take your lumps and move on.
I'm amazed. (Score:5, Insightful)
What the parlor users did has the companies that distribute, or distributed parlor freaking out over liability concerns.
Even successfully defending against one of those will cost a fortune.
There is no way that parlor is worth even a single percent of one of those lawsuits to the corporations.
So naturally, the yeet the figuratively live grenade.
That's not a conspiracy, that's called capitalism.
By the way, the Free Speech enshrined in The Constitution of the United States has never been legally accepted to give carte blanche to say anything, and it only restricts the government, not private individuals, small businesses, or even huge corporations.
Why do so many people not understand these things? I know they used to teach this stuff in school.
No one see this as a problem? (Score:3)
Re:Lawyers could have a field day (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not afraid of Parler users, or the people who invaded the capitol. I'm not afraid of Antifa.
I am afraid of censorship. Removing Parler probably does make the world a better place, but the precedent is worrisome. Speech should be countered with speech, not with fearful censorship.
Re: (Score:3)
Speech should be countered with speech
This becomes a problem when they refuse to hear the speech. Anyone who asks for evidence is a libtard, and a victim of the fake news media.
Unmoderated forums are a cesspool. And we watched the resulting mob. Maybe the education system is the problem. Something went horribly wrong with the grand vision for the Internet that I was sold, about connecting us and having all this wonderful access to information. Critical thinking skills didn't ramp up along with that.
Re: (Score:3)
If morons outnumber sane people, then there's nothing you can do. Society is fucked and the structure of the government won't make any difference.
The Internet lets all the crazies get together (Score:2)
Also, the problem isn't just the Internet. The media gave Trump billions in free coverage because he was good for ratings. That's just mass media at work, and that existed pre-Internet.
On the plus side there will likely never be another Trump. Trump had a level of celebrity that was only possible for someone who came up in the 80s and 90s when entertainment options were fewer and farther between. That gave him a kind of universal name recognition and celebri
Re:Lawyers could have a field day (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the problem with private companies controlling significant parts of the media. You are beholden to their whims, and although you still technically have the right to speak freely noone will hear you because they only know about the main platforms.
Services like parler are not inherently far right, there is just no incentive to use these services unless you are unable to use the more well known ones for whatever reason. While people with moderate views could easily use parler etc, they have no reaso
Make a public YouTube (Score:2)
And there are times when extremist views must be censored. We've long since established you can't shout fire in a theater and you can't advertise drugs that don't work. Not all speech is protected nor should it be. Human beings are prone to mental illness and emotional outbursts. And democracy is a fragile thing. There is a line, and it has been crossed.
Re: (Score:3)
You are beholden to their whims
AKA their own free speech rights.
Re: (Score:3)
''Yes, we're pretty fearful, and for good reason.''
And you think the appropriate solution is to blame the platform, not the actors? That's the equivalent of preventing usage of a printing press in the last century.
No platform that doesn't selectively present content to gain engagement is responsable [and the ones that profit from engagement are only semi responsable].
The ones that profit from engagement don't give a shit what engages users, as long as they capture user engagement to sell adds.
The content pr
Re: Lawyers could have a field day (Score:2)
Trembling. You're trembling.
Not with fear, though. With rage.
It has to be pretty damn hard to tremble like that for four years.
Projection.
Re: Lawyers could have a field day (Score:3)
You know who isn't a false flag rioter? Retired Air Force Lt. Col Larry Brock Jr. He was the man caught on camera in combat gear holding flex cuffs. Neither was Eric Munched, a Nashville bartender now immortalized as "Ziptie Guy" after being caught on camera vaulting over a bench in the Senate chamber in tactical gear and also holding flex cuffs. Both are vocal supporters of Trump.
u could make that argument for any TOS violation (Score:3)
Apple alone isn't a monopoly, Google plus Apple colluding?
When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say
Apple and Google stated terms of service. Parler is not following them. Using that logic, malware providers could sue as well if Apple AND Google ban them. Using your logic, can I create an app with a million copyright infringements that gets me banned from both platforms? Will you post some heroic, but not applicable, George RR Martin quote in my defense?.
Just because everyone finds you objectionable, doesn't mean there is collusion, particularly of the illegal sort. If your app is linked with cri
I'm not Apple or Google, so no, I don't (Score:2)
Do you also tell people that if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear?
First they came for the right wing, and you did not speak out, because you were not the right wing. Who will they come for next? Will there be anyone left to speak out when they come for you?
Twitter is used to coordinate and promote rioting, violence, and hate. They refuse to moderate lots of it, even when it is reported. They allow blatant propaganda from Chinese and Iranian governments, while banning the US President for tweets like "I will not attend the Inauguration." Why don't Apple and Google also ban Twitter?
I'm not Apple, nor Google, so this is none of my business. Nice straw man there, buddy. Apple gets to decide what is good enough moderation and what isn't if you want them to host your apps in their app store. The same applies to Google, so Anonymous Coward, I don't tell people anything. It's not my job to. They get to make the rules and their rule is that you need moderation of some sort. Parler can comply and be a mainstream service or resist and ensure that their app is really hard to use on a mobil
Re: (Score:2)
Apple alone isn't a monopoly, Google plus Apple colluding?
Some what, Google pays Apple like 12 billion a year to be their default search engine.
So like platform neutrality only exists as long as it doesn't effect income.
Nobody's tongue got torn out (Score:2)
As for fearing what they might say, yeah, we do. They've been inciting violence. We've long since established that free speech has limits. And the extreme right wing has long since exceeded those
Re: (Score:2)
Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al all colluding towards inciting the public into a rage fest against the POTUS by telling everyone he is inciting violence... That doesn't seem very lawful to me. That seems slanderous at best. And against the POTUS, maybe even worse charges could be brought.
As a Republican who did not vote for Trump either time, I'm relieved that he is fading into the sunset. But who will the AGTF combine turn its now-absolute powers of censorship against next? Standard Oil in its heyday never enjoyed this degree of monopoly power.
Re: So much for freedom of information (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If youâ(TM)re an individual whoâ(TM)s fact-based, uses peer reviewed studies as a basis for decision making...removing Parler from their stores makes no iota of difference... because they paddle in misinformation by the real definition NOT by conspiracy guff.
Which peer reviewed study did you get that fact from? Or is it more of a "gut feeling?"
I suspect that given the way the past 4 years have transpired, Apple and Google are concerned about liability. And they probably should be. Tritter, facebook and instagram as well.
I also suspect that Law enforcement does not want Parler to go away. That should be a gold mine for keeping track of the nuts.
Meanwhile, the MAGA stickers on vehicles and the Trump-Pence signs in the yards are getting rare as steak tartare the last two days. Perhaps for the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the MAGA stickers on vehicles and the Trump-Pence signs in the yards are getting rare as steak tartare the last two days.
LOL around here I haven't seen a MAGA sticker in a long time, if ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the MAGA stickers on vehicles and the Trump-Pence signs in the yards are getting rare as steak tartare the last two days.
LOL around here I haven't seen a MAGA sticker in a long time, if ever.
Oh, we had the stereotype old pickup trucks with a half dozen flags and stickers, on them. Some farmer had a shitspreader by the road with a Trump " No More Bullshit" flag on it, and a lot of "Get aboard the Trump Train" flags and stickers all over it. The no more Bullshit one was kind of funny, but it kind of left people wondering what it meant.
My area is surrounded by really rural places, where they worshipped Trump. But it gets hard to win elections when you appeal to the 5 people per square mile popul
Re: (Score:2)
Liability? What possible liability do they have? Section 230 says they have no liability for any third party speech that they merely act as a re-publisher for. But in these cases, they don't even act as the re-publisher; they simply decide whether to authorize an app on their mobile (and/or desktop) operating systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Liability? What possible liability do they have? Section 230 says they have no liability for any third party speech that they merely act as a re-publisher for. But in these cases, they don't even act as the re-publisher; they simply decide whether to authorize an app on their mobile (and/or desktop) operating systems.
And Trump wants Section 230 eliminated https://dbknews.com/2020/11/29... [dbknews.com] There are still Trumpers in congress, and they are much butthurt that the heart and soul of their ideology has been stood down. If Trumpers and the other domestic terrorist can succeed in making their words above the law, you can bet that Apple and Google would be in their sights. Some folks play the long game. so there ya go.
Aside from that, Parler is kind of as respectable as dogfighting. So a lot of people are fed up with Trump
Re:So much for freedom of information (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh for fuck's sake, enough with the "censorship !" posts !
Right now, as we speak, all Trump has to do is call a press conference, and all the journalists he insulted, belittled, shouted at, and demanded to be trown out will show up; yes, even the ones he called "ennemies of the people".
Then he can say whatever the fuck he wants, throw his little two-year-old temper tantrums, and go on one of his mentally-deranged rants, and every single one of his words will almost instantly make it to every news outlet, be broadcasted on every major radio and TV network around the world, and play in loop for days on end.
Is that what you call "silenced" ? I'd sure like to be "silenced" and "censored" like that.
You trumptards' unshakable devotion to this pathologically deranged psychopathic abomination is beyond pathetic, it borders on insanity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait. Are you saying the members of the House and Senate are more important that thousands of businesses across the country? Our Constitution doesn't say anything about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for fuck's sake, enough with the "censorship !" posts !
Amen. The pure freedom of speech folks here need to come to an understanding that others are allowed to react to what they say. I mean they won't, but they need to. The first amendment does not include the freedom to make threats of physical violence, or other criminal acts.
Right now, as we speak, all Trump has to do is call a press conference, and all the journalists he insulted, belittled, shouted at, and demanded to be trown out will show up; yes, even the ones he called "ennemies of the people".
Then he can say whatever the fuck he wants, throw his little two-year-old temper tantrums, and go on one of his mentally-deranged rants, and every single one of his words will almost instantly make it to every news outlet, be broadcasted on every major radio and TV network around the world, and play in loop for days on end.
Is that what you call "silenced" ? I'd sure like to be "silenced" and "censored" like that.
You trumptards' unshakable devotion to this pathologically deranged psychopathic abomination is beyond pathetic, it borders on insanity.
I have a sneaking suspicion that since he has a perfectly documented incitement for his followers to attack Congress and the people who work there, Trump might have been put on a short leash by law enforcement in order to avoid arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, point to this documented incitement. Explain how it qualifies, with appropriate references to Brandenburg v. Ohio.
That is exactly how this does NOT work. The president is immune to criminal arrest as long as he holds that office. If you don't want to wait for January
Re: (Score:2)
Please, point to this documented incitement.
Just crawl out from under a rock? You saw and heard it as well as I did, and so did law enforcement and everyone that the MAGAs put in danger for their terrorist assault on the capital building. You need to argue that with other people than me.
So anyhow, if the President machine guns everyone down in the whitehouse, he is immune?
Sorry MAGA, He incited them, they did as directed, That's a seditious act, and saying the president is by law enavled to comit sedition, is about as flawed as the idea that Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So much for freedom of information (Score:4, Informative)
I honestly regard this as a difficult question with no ideal solution. Look at what happened in Myanmar when social media was able to brainwash virtually the entire Buddhist population that the Rohingya were a terrible bunch of foreigners, resulting in half the Rohingya villages being razed, and a million forced to flee to Bangladesh (not to mention thousands raped and murdered). Facebook, in particular, was traumatised by the realisation that its platform was largely responsible for the genocide. It is hard to argue with the proposition that facts and legitimate views should be freely accessible. However, what do you do when there are groups successfully radicalising large segments of the population against other groups in society based on bombarding them with false information?
The attempted crackdown on Parler is unlikely to be successful. The site can be accessed using the browser interface almost as conveniently as using the App.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What's it called when the ruling party and big companies partner up to establish dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy?
The ongoing and urgent public threat is that totalitarian bigots are deplatforming people for saying things like "I will not attend the Inauguration". For saying such supposedly violent and inflammatory things as "Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the peopl
Re:CHINA AS A ROLE MODEL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CHINA AS A ROLE MODEL (Score:4, Insightful)
In the same way a phone company isn't liable for someone making prank calls at a police station, silicon valley giants aren't liable for what's posted on their sites... but then, the same phone company isn't allowed to spy on your calls and DC you if you say things they don't like, whereas these people did just that.
Re: CHINA AS A ROLE MODEL (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"No one is forcing you to use Apple or Google products."
Try having a job these days without a cell phone that runs IOS or Android. Good luck other than a dishwasher.
Re: (Score:3)
That's OK, seditionists don't get jobs anymore, anyway.
Re: CHINA AS A ROLE MODEL (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Solve that problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Solve that problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are seeing it because the socials are going after Trump and his minions. Slashdotters will change their mind as soon as they notice they are next.
Re: Solve that problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't give a rodents donkey about your political leanings, they only care about their profits and their potential liability, and even liability is still about profits.
It's pure capitalism at work, not liberalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a Linux-phone is mentioned on Slashdot the cries are "But it won't run my apps!" :)
Re: Solve that problem. (Score:3)
The Visigoths were fine people.
Re: (Score:2)
Many online services would work perfectly well in a browser, except companies have spent millions on apps while deliberately crippling the mobile web interface, e.g. Instagram.
F-you to any website with a popup that pesters me to (a) download and install their app, or (b) continue in browser.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need an app to access Parler.
For the moment, no. But the cancelers are already homing in on the websites:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: reddit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: reddit (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything seems left when you're so far right. It's all just a frame of reference.
I’m out of mod points or I’d add insightful, because this is so very true.
What many Americans don’t understand is the internet is not all American. Americans don’t often even really think about other countries or have a “highly simplified” concept of what they are or how they operate. The vast majority of the people in the world likely to speak English are left of America, some areas by quite a bit left. Even Canada’s Conservative party charter respects a women’s right to choose for example. So when Americans see social media, they tend to see quite a bit more of a “left” bias. It’s not though, in the eyes of a pretty large chunk of the world we’re kinda nuts here.
Re: (Score:3)
They haven't potentially committed sedition.
The right wing and far too many parlor users have potentially committed sedition, and no company with shareholders is going to risk being tied into that kind of thing.
Re:reddit (Score:5, Informative)
Good thing that never happened. Absentee ballot applications were sent out unsolicitied. Although, frankly, I don't see any problem with mailing ballots to every registered voter starting in July, return by November.
Signature validation done by amateurs in 5-10 seconds doesn't pass the kind of reliability testing I would use to verify anything. Studies show that volunteer vote counters are far more likely to throw out valid ballots than find any fraud. There are very real skews that show valid young people's ballots thrown out at higher rates than others. To say nothing of I have no idea which signature the government is going to have of mine. It's literally worse than nothing.
That's an issue. It's an issue at the polls where a wandering eye can read the touchscreen. It's, in general, an issue. But there's not much solution to "vote at home" that doesn't have that issue, and voting at home in a pandemic is a good thing.
Re: Censorship is bad. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Censorship is bad. (Score:3)
So we should let people take over the Capital if they have a good manifesto to read out. Yeah, let's see how that goes. It's a public space, so no one has the right to censor anyone. Someone owns [Social Media Co., Inc.] Ownership has its privileges. It's not a public space.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really have a hard time believing that an attempted insurrection to overturn a presidential election is less serious than a civil case of contractual non-compliance between a company and two other companies, causing a dissolution of ongoing relationship until it's rectified.
I mean, I get you really, really want to walk around telling companies what they can and cannot do, because you don't believe in the free market. But I'm still going to say that, personally, I would rather stand up for democracy ins
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook had a record quarter while they were targeted with a splashy boycott last summer. Some of the participating companies just ran their ads on Facebook-owned Instagram instead. Almost all of them dropped it entirely a few weeks later. It's pure posturing. Boycotts are no threat to Facebook or Apple or Google.
Facebook's supposed "censorship" is just posturing as well, since 95% of posts [slashdot.org] deemed to violate the ToS aren't removed, and only 1 in 1000 are deemed so, meaning Facebook censors a whopping 0.000
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Coordinated attack on Americans rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is that there are at least 74 million people that have been disenfranchised
Being outvoted is not disenfranchisement.
If you're really interested in heading off violence, you should start by not lying to people.