Tim Cook: Why I Kicked Parler Off Apple's App Store (cnn.com) 381
Charlotte Web shares a report from CNN: Apple, along with Amazon and Google, effectively kicked Parler off the internet in the wake of the January 6 US Capitol siege. Despite criticism that Big Tech wields too much power over speech, Apple CEO Tim Cook defended his decision. "We looked at the incitement to violence that was on there," Apple CEO Tim Cook said on Sunday. "We don't consider that free speech and incitement to violence has an intersection..."
Cook disputed that it's Apple's job to host every service, regardless of its content. He noted that Apple has terms of service for the 2 million apps its hosts, and apps that refuse to play by the rules aren't allowed to access Apple's massive audience. "We obviously don't control what's on the internet, but we've never viewed that our platform should be a simple replication of what's on the internet," Cook said.Apple will welcome back Parler -- provided Parler finds a new cloud provider to host the social network -- if the app effectively moderates users' speech, said the Apple CEO. "We've only suspended them," Cook noted. "If they get their moderation together they would be back on there." With regard to the Capitol siege, Cook said: "It was one of the saddest moments of my life -- seeing an attack on our Capitol and an attack on our democracy. I felt like I was in some sort of alternate reality, to be honest with you. This could not be happening."
Cook disputed that it's Apple's job to host every service, regardless of its content. He noted that Apple has terms of service for the 2 million apps its hosts, and apps that refuse to play by the rules aren't allowed to access Apple's massive audience. "We obviously don't control what's on the internet, but we've never viewed that our platform should be a simple replication of what's on the internet," Cook said.Apple will welcome back Parler -- provided Parler finds a new cloud provider to host the social network -- if the app effectively moderates users' speech, said the Apple CEO. "We've only suspended them," Cook noted. "If they get their moderation together they would be back on there." With regard to the Capitol siege, Cook said: "It was one of the saddest moments of my life -- seeing an attack on our Capitol and an attack on our democracy. I felt like I was in some sort of alternate reality, to be honest with you. This could not be happening."
not exactly (Score:3, Informative)
>Apple, along with Amazon and Google, effectively kicked Parler off the internet
No Parler built a POS database app and did it in a way that was completely dependent on AWS. Amazon kicked them off the internet. If Parler didn't have AWS-only requirements it would be much easier to move to another provider.
Saying that the Apple and Google app stores can kick someone off of the internet is horribly inaccurate.
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that a business deciding not to take the money of a disreputable party is completely within their rights
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if they follow the terms of their contract. Even "disreputable" parties have rights under contract law.
Re: (Score:3)
Only if they follow the terms of their contract.
No, It's the other way around. Unless Apple bound themselves to provide a service for som duration of time they can cancel the contract for any reason at any time. It's up to Parler to show that Apple owe them future service by contract. I think re-animating Johnnie Cochran would be a lesser feat.
Re: (Score:3)
This is actually a bad thing for Amazon more than for Parler. Yes, it could kill Parler in the short term, but in the long term, it will have a negative effect on Amazon.
What Amazon has done is sent a message that building on their platform is risky because you could be turfed at any time. They may have had a "reason" to turf Parler, but every time a justification is made, it is easier to make the next justification that is just outside of this one. So, at some point it may be that they can justify kicking
Re: (Score:2)
There has got to be something in the App Store TOS/EULA that says "Apple can do whatever the fuck we want to you and the worst you'll ever be able to do to us is enter arbitration."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
The major tech corporations consider themselves above the law and petty little things like constitutions, when they can buy the government and the courts to interpret laws in any fanciful way the lobbyists interpret.
Actually, it was conservatives who pushed the whole idea that businesses have the right to tell customers to get bent. At the time, they were so thrilled Christians would be able to tell gays to get their cakes elsewhere, they didn't consider the ramifications of left-leaning businesses doing exactly the same thing to conservatives.
Be careful what you wish for, and all that.
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that most of these businesses are particularly "left leaning".
Business ideology isn't really left or right. Its just "whats good for the business". And Apple have taken a stance that vitriolic deceptive bullshit is bad for the customer and therefore bad for them.
This applies to other business too. Even Rupert Murdoch isnt REALLY a right winger. He's simply decided right wing parties might give him less tax to pay. He's changed his colours before. He used to support Labor here in australia due to the cross media ownership laws keeping TV companies from muscling into the Newspaper trade. Then when he decided to get into Cable TV he turned on Labor and became a conservative because the conservatives wanted to get rid of cross media ownership laws. His only Ideology is Rupert Murdoch.
Actually I kinda suspect Trumps that way too. He'll glomp onto anything.he thinks is good for him and oppose anything h thinks is bad for him. As a billionaire that tends to be conservatives, cos they are easier to buy.
Businesses are not forced to be psychopaths (Score:2, Interesting)
> Business ideology isn't really left or right. Its just "whats good for the business".
This is just wrong or short sighted, bordering a Nuremberg defense.
And if it was right: A dissolving society is bad for business, too.
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
The cake case was much narrower than that and has no bearing on this case. The couple said they were denied buying a cake for being gay (protected class), the baker said in a twist that couldn't be disproven that pre-made cakes was fine, but to bake a special cake is a work of art, art is speech and cannot be forced by the government and won.
Re: (Score:3)
So it looks like a baker could refuse to make you a very ugly cake, or one with a racist or homophobic message, or one with a message that he doesn't like. Like if I
Re: (Score:3)
Right, and that's a reason why you might have to serve someone you don't want to, but not a reason why you might have to make them precisely what they want. At least, that's the current state of the law. It's also one which I agree with. I think homophobia is pathetic, but I think forcing someone to engage in an artistic endeavor with which they do not agree for your own amusement is even more pathetic. It's not like the cake is a necessity; the decorations are even less so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
agreed- not ideological reasons (Score:3)
Republicans are spouting off about unfair treatment by these tech companies and referencing Parler as an example. Inconvenient truth is, messages on Parler were used to coordinate an activity that resulted in several people being killed. The families of those killed have lawyers who will need to sue someone for wrongful death. Parler will declare bankruptcy to avoid paying out a huge judgement. The lawyers will bundle into their lawsuits the facilitators who can pay--
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Re: (Score:2)
until something you agree with is deemed disreputable. the pendulum swings both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the App Store and Play Store de-listed the app before Amazon kicked them off.
So it did become a moot point, but it didn't start off as one.
Being governed by corporate monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
It is one thing for a newspaper to refuse to print a letter to the editor that it does not agree with. It is quite different for the water company to cut the newspaper's necessary water for printing a letter, and to threaten the same to any other similar newspaper.
Facebook and Twitter censorship is one thing. But Apple and Amazon are infrastructure providers. And Apple has a monopoly over a large chunk of users.
For all its faults, the rule of law is important. You get to state your case, and it is (fairly) transparent. Not so with corporate control.
Given websites are like apps these days, I suppose many posters would think it OK if Apple and Google browsers censored those pages, and they also refused to allow any other browser that did not impose the correct censorship.
We all hate Parlor et. al. But what about things you are sympathetic about? Extinction Rebellion and BLM also incite people to break the law. And sometimes this certainly leads to violence. It would, of course, be outrageous if they were censored.
Many of the current protests against corrupt regimes in Europe are incitements. The US founding fathers certainly incited violence against the British, and mainly based on lies and misinformation -- their main motive was to be allowed to steal land from the native americans. Surely they should be censored.
Contract law is NOT all powerful. European courts have explicitly ruled that monopolistic corporates cannot impose this type of arbitrary censorship even about views that most disagree with. Another example is that in California, you cannot sign away your right to work for a different employer. So no, just because it is in some legalistic terms of service does not make it OK.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is one thing for a newspaper to refuse to print a letter to the editor that it does not agree with. It is quite different for the water company to cut the newspaper's necessary water for printing a letter, and to threaten the same to any other similar newspaper.
municipal water supply != private tech companymany.
Facebook and Twitter censorship is one thing. But Apple and Amazon are infrastructure providers. And Apple has a monopoly over a large chunk of users.
A monopoly over a "chunk of users"? So ... not a monopoly????
We all hate Parlor et. al. But what about things you are sympathetic about? Extinction Rebellion and BLM also incite people to break the law. And sometimes this certainly leads to violence. It would, of course, be outrageous if they were censored.
And when BLM makes direct threats on reputable platforms like Facebook or Twitter, they have moderation programs that are reasonable and make every effort to take the content down. Parler does not. It's really simple.
Many of the current protests against corrupt regimes in Europe are incitements. The US founding fathers certainly incited violence against the British, and mainly based on lies and misinformation -- their main motive was to be allowed to steal land from the native americans. Surely they should be censored.
Yes, probably! /r/selfawarewolves anyone? I'm glad they weren't in the sense that it benefited me but the native americans aren't exactly happy about it.
Contract law is NOT all powerful. European courts have explicitly ruled that monopolistic corporates cannot impose this type of arbitrary censorship even about views that most disagree with. Another example is that in California, you cannot sign away your right to work for a different employer. So no, just because it is in some legalistic terms of service does not make it OK.
Again, something has to fi
Re:Being governed by corporate monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, something has to first BE a monopoly, which Apple is not. Do you know what a monopoly is? I'm starting to wonder...
A company does not necessarily have to be a monopoly to behave in an anti-competitive manner. The antitrust suit against Microsoft bundling IE is a good example of this. Microsoft wasn't the only company making desktop operating systems, nor were they the sole provider of web browsing software. The complaint against Microsoft was that they were using their position in the marketplace to stifle competition. Sound eerily familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Being governed by corporate monopolies (Score:4, Informative)
This was what happened to Pornhub when accused of carrying child porn. and credit cards stopped handling payments for them. It's also what happened to Wikileaks, which did not call for violence but certainly violated various laws about secret documents.
Re: (Score:3)
Mastercard probably didn't have much choice in the case of Pornhub. Once they knew about the child porn and involuntary porn they couldn't just ignore it without creating some liability for themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikileaks did not violate laws about secret documents unless you want to criminalize all journalism. The leakers did. The US of course did violate the law, in every way possible.
Re: (Score:2)
European courts have explicitly ruled that monopolistic corporates cannot impose this type of arbitrary censorship even about views that most disagree with.
Do you have a source for that?
Another example is that in California, you cannot sign away your right to work for a different employer. So no, just because it is in some legalistic terms of service does not make it OK.
If it's not compensated it's not a contract and not enforceable, that's the way it works in my part of the world i.e not California and no special law.
Re: (Score:2)
It is one thing for a newspaper to refuse to print a letter to the editor that it does not agree with. It is quite different for the water company to cut the newspaper's necessary water for printing a letter, and to threaten the same to any other similar newspaper.
Facebook and Twitter censorship is one thing. But Apple and Amazon are infrastructure providers. And Apple has a monopoly over a large chunk of users.
For all its faults, the rule of law is important. You get to state your case, and it is (fairly) transparent. Not so with corporate control.
Given websites are like apps these days, I suppose many posters would think it OK if Apple and Google browsers censored those pages, and they also refused to allow any other browser that did not impose the correct censorship.
We all hate Parlor et. al. But what about things you are sympathetic about? Extinction Rebellion and BLM also incite people to break the law. And sometimes this certainly leads to violence. It would, of course, be outrageous if they were censored.
Many of the current protests against corrupt regimes in Europe are incitements. The US founding fathers certainly incited violence against the British, and mainly based on lies and misinformation -- their main motive was to be allowed to steal land from the native americans. Surely they should be censored.
Contract law is NOT all powerful. European courts have explicitly ruled that monopolistic corporates cannot impose this type of arbitrary censorship even about views that most disagree with. Another example is that in California, you cannot sign away your right to work for a different employer. So no, just because it is in some legalistic terms of service does not make it OK.
No
Re: (Score:2)
No Parler built a POS database app and did it in a way that was completely dependent on AWS.
They're back up already.
They weren't completely dependent on AWS.
They were completely dependent upon some trial version software, but they must have worked around that by now.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a very limited placeholder website with no functionality. I wouldn't consider that back up.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a ridiculous list of requirements and its not something where you just flip the switch. They built on AWS APIs and to find another provider that would support the same APIs.
Incitement (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what incitement means according to the ACLU [talksonlaw.com]:
“Incitement to violence” is a term that refers to speech that creates an immediate risk of harm to another person. It’s kind of like a threat, except it’s done through another person. Which is to say, rather than threaten you directly with harm, I suggest to another person, “Why don’t you hurt her?” Under the First Amendment, it’s an extremely high bar before speech can be criminalized as incitement. But unless and until there is an immediate and serious risk to a specific identifiable person, that speech can’t be made criminal consistent with our First Amendment.
Of course, Tim Cook might be using a more colloquial meaning of the word "incitement."
Re: Incitement (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how FB isnâ(TM)t getting booted and the evidence indicates they were used to facilitate the protest. That and Twitter helping burn cities to the ground should be considered. But ol Tim is turning a blind eye to violence he agrees with.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. I welcome Tim Cook giving a more precise definition of what he considers "incitement." As this poster points out [slashdot.org], "urging on" violence is incitement (though it doesn't match the legal definition), and Facebook and Twitter have a lot of that stuff on their websites. Slashdot has it here, too. When will Apple ban the Slashdot apps?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. I welcome Tim Cook giving a more precise definition of what he considers "incitement."
Anything that they can point to that helps them get rid of an up and coming competitor is incitement. Your welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's not that complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides what is 'sufficient' ? And it what time period is sufficient for N staff ?
Face it, its a unfair premeditated judgemental decisions.
If they let a bot decide this purely on rules, with ZERO white lists, it would ban twitter , youtube, facebook 500 times a day.
Re: Incitement (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Incitement (Score:2, Insightful)
After watching BLM Antifa burn cities, kill people, beat people, shoot people, rape, loot, attack police, attack federal buildings, and so on for most of the year, yes, we know what violence, illegal protest, and incitement look like since these things were planned through Twitter and Facebook.
Thanks for asking.
Re: Incitement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, Tim Cook might be using a more colloquial meaning of the word "incitement."
Colloquial? Did you mean the definition as found in a common dictionary?
Definition of incite
transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
Re: (Score:2)
Legal words have legal meanings, and the colloquial meanings of those words have no legal importance except under very specific circumstances (of which this is not).
So if I get you straight - Mr Cook is required to use the legal term only.
Cook is using a legal phrase "incitement to violence" to sound important and clever, but by using the colloquial meaning of the term, he ends up looking like his usual foolish self.
Here's some incitement news for ya - https://www.nbcphiladelphia.co... [nbcphiladelphia.com]
You guys are going to have to stop acting like outfits like parler are freedom loving free speech platforms, and that people who don't want to aid and abet domestic terrorists are som
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some incitement news for ya - https://www.nbcphiladelphia.co... [www.nbcphiladelphia.co] [nbcphiladelphia.com]
Where in that news article about shootings in Monroe County, Pennsylvania is there any indication that they are due to domestic terrorism? Let alone related to what we are talking about.
You and I both know the shootings in the article you linked are most likely drug related and have nothing to do with what's being discussed here.
Your black and white reasoning is weak. I can
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - if Cook is trying to provide a legal justification for the reasons he banned a social media site, he should use legal terms.
It's up to Parler to show that Apples actions were illegal or a breach of contract, Can you explain why you believe the burden is on Cook/Apple for legal justification or am I misinterpreting you?
Re: (Score:2)
The point I'm making is this: if Tim Cook wants to throw around legal terms like "incitement to violence" without using the legal meaning of that term correctly, I think
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:3)
This was incitement to violent insurrection. It doesn't require a threat to a specific person, but rather to a specific institution.
They were chanting Hang Mike Pence, though, because Trump told them that he was a bad boy.
So, twitter's next, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
You can find the same shit on Twitter and Facebook - it's funny that they only seem to care about Gab and Parler.
Re:So, twitter's next, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why exactly do right-wingers need a platform that allows incitement of insurrection? If I were a conservative activist, I wouldn't want to be tainted by that and would welcome the moderation. If "censoring violent insurrection" = "censoring conservatives," I guess that all conservative ideas really are discredited. Wow.
Double Standard (Score:2, Insightful)
"We don't consider that free speech and incitement to violence has an intersection..."
But you not only continued to host but actively promoted BLM while they were breaking COVID rules, burning down businesses, attacking innocent bystandards, and ambushing police officers. For months. Cut the shit, you kicked them off because you don't like their politics. If BLM had stormed the capital building you'd be cheering them on.
Re: (Score:3)
Cut the shit, you kicked them off because you don't like their politics.
Yes that is precisely what happened. And you know what? If your politics involve trying to overthrow the results of the election then you are going to piss off an imperial assload of people, certainly the majority who actually live in America. And you're going to have to suffer the consequences of no one wanting to associate with you.
Saying and doing bad shit doesn't magically get a free pass because you slap the label "politics" on it.
The Twilight Zone (Score:5, Insightful)
That's how the rest of the world has been feeling since the day Trump got elected.
Re:The Twilight Zone (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was younger I thought Batman villains were over the top ridiculous in both style and actions. T made them very plausible. He probably is one.
Of Course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
A few years too late, but better late than never.
It's just for show... (Score:2, Informative)
Of the 30 people arrested in DC none had Parler accounts, and Parler does not even have support for event-planning..
So, is it not more probable they they used Facebook, that have all those features, since they all did have accounts there?
I think we all should be worried about the development of how these companies are behaving.. Banning speech has never been good and will only deepen the polarization..
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You either have the memory of a goldfish or assume that the rest of us do, because this was an article posted here just a few days ago: https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
So which am I to believe: that Parler is just a poor, innocent company with no ties to anyone who illegally entered the Capitol, or that there is literally geotagged video footage from Parler users that directly contradicts that notion?
Maybe someone will believe your lies next time, AC.
The provided explanation is not credible (Score:3, Insightful)
To me it is very clear that Apple was leveraging its monopolistic power in order to engage in a political fight against weakened enemy. What Tim Cook and the rest of Silicon Valley technocrats did was pure and simple power grab. Moving forward, the new normal is them deciding what is and is not acceptable speech on their platforms, which at this point encompasses almost entire Internet down to backbone providers and payment processors.
Re: (Score:2)
the new normal is them deciding what is and is not acceptable speech on their platforms
This was always the normal.
Re: (Score:3)
The first letter from Apple to Parler was November 17th.
Tim Cook is a liar (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazingly every one of their vendors, even their lawyers, deplatformed them in the same 24 hour period - over the weekend. This just happened to be the 24 hour period after it made the news that Trump was joining.
In the real world Parler being deplatformed had everything to do with Trump joining the platform. Let Trump join your platform and your company will itself be deplatformed. It was a blatant demonstration of power to send a political message - Trump will be deplatformed. Your company cannot afford t
Re: (Score:2)
The claim will never pass muster in a court
It's irrelevant because Apple has the right to kick people off their platform.
I personally think they should have to permit sideloading, so that users can load whatever they want. But they would still have the right to kick anyone they want off of their app store.
Re:Tim Cook is a liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it was because Trump joined and had nothing to do with it being used to coordinate an insurrection at the capitol.
It also has nothing to do with them heavily moderating anything but the extreme right views.
It's because Trump joined.
Re: Tim Cook is a liar (Score:3)
This just happened to be the 24 hour period after it made the news that Trump was joining.
It just HAPPENED to be same 24 hour period in which the Capitol Building was invaded by a MAGA mob, spooky coincidence, or actions have consequences?
Re: (Score:2)
This just happened to be the 24 hour period after it made the news that Trump was joining.
Did he really join Parler or was there an official statement that he would? Afaik there was only speculation and a place holder account with content copied from twitter that was never under his control.
Re: (Score:3)
Even putting aside the actual evidence (videos posted from within the capitol during the riots on parler) this statement is mind bendingly stupid. There were thousands of people involved with the capitol rights, no one can possibly say exactly how many were or weren't users of Parler. It becomes clearer by the day that a hardcore of supporters exist where any lie no matter how patently absurb is fine if it fits with the narrative they w
Bullshit it was about inclement to violence (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't consider that free speech and incitement to violence has an intersection.
I just checked my iPhone, built in Twitter and Facebook integration is still working just fine.
The whole capital riot was planned over Facebook, not Parler. Nothing I've even seen posted from Parler looks anything like the levels of hate and violence posted to Facebook and Twitter daily.
In this case Apple very clearly went with a what is basically a cabal of companies bent on shutting down conservative speech, they acted enou
Re:Bullshit it was about inclement to violence (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, Kendoll, so triggered. When you have a group of insurrectionists trying to change election results by force you don’t get to do it without consequences. This is the consequence of a mass campaign of lies about election fraud. The utter moral bankruptcy of the far right laid bare.
Speech has consequences, you can say what you want, but then you must deal with the response.
You’ve posted many times about rights of companies, so it’s rather amusing to see you do a double twist with pike trying to promote the opposite.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Nothing I've even seen posted from Parler looks anything like the levels of hate and violence posted to Facebook and Twitter daily."
Either you haven't been looking very hard, or you're a barefaced liar. Based on other comments by you, the latter is more likely.
Re:Bullshit it was about inclement to violence (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole capital riot was planned over Facebook, not Parler.
It was planned on both Facebook and Parler. The difference is that Facebook eventually got around to cracking down on the groups involved, whereas Parler spends its moderation time and effort kicking liberals off the platform for disagreeing with them. So Facebook ineffectually but eventually terminates these white supremacy havens, while Parler welcomes and protects them. Your false equivalence is both sickening, and par for the course where you're concerned.
solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Shutting up your critics is an illegitimate rebuttal and censors have never been on the right side of history.
Censorship drives users away from media content platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Those platforms have growth momentum but ultimately they can not win because the platform which invites everyone in will be larger than the platform which excludes politically disapproved groups. Particularly because disputes between adversarial groups on a single platform are synergistic; arguing generates message traffic. The real threat to free expression is that the migration path away from political censorship has been cut off by the Apple and Google phone duopoly. Even Amazon canceling Parler is not a big deal, Parler can migrate to a different host.
If we don't want to live in a future where a few billionaire CEOs decide who gets a public voice then we need to bust up the phone oligopoly.
Is there anything to prevent me from building and distributing a custom version of Android which acts just like Android but which provides easy access to other App stores, in addition to the Google App store? I think that would be a great selling point for phones. As a business proposition, it's totally feasible to source OEMed phones with a custom Android build factory installed and resell them at some markup. Seems desirable to have a phone just like Android but which lets me install not only Google-sanctioned apps but also apps approved by a politically-neutral vetting process. That also opens up the phone to stores with other specializations, such as more secure app vetting or lower fees.
Does Google block that somehow? Anyone see why that wouldn't work?
Re: (Score:3)
There are third party builds of android without any google crap already available - for example lineageOS ( https://lineageos.org/ [lineageos.org] ). Many people also prefer this.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were raging against Apple here, everything you rambled on about would actually make sense. Sideloading on iOS is a huge pain in the ass and comes with a bunch of caveats. But you can change a tickbox in the security settings on just about every Android device (even Amazon's proprietary FireOS fork), and sideload whatever you want. Once you've made that change, you can just browse to Parler's site and download the APK directly - if they're clued in enough that they made it available (I'm not in the
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but smile a bit at the irony implicit in your comment. Parler is owned by a millionaire, and members who expressed left wing views were consistently booted off the platform.
Frank Herbert knew all along (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter and Facebook Should be Removed as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because both had moderation in place and have actively moderated hate speech, the lack of which is exactly the reason Parler was kicked.
the issue in a nutshell (Score:2, Insightful)
"We don't consider that free speech and incitement to violence has an intersection..."
That's the whole point right there: We don't consider. That's not how the Rule of Law works. You are not a judge, so you don't get to decide what is free speech and what isn't.
No matter what you think about Parler or Trump, if the big tech companies get away with this, we've just given up on one of the core concepts of civilization. The Rule of Law says that it is the duly appointed courts who get to decide such questions after proper procedures, including the right of the accused to defend himself.
Re: (Score:3)
No matter what you think about Parler or Trump, if the big tech companies get away with this, we've just given up on one of the core concepts of civilization. The Rule of Law says that it is the duly appointed courts who get to decide such questions after proper procedures, including the right of the accused to defend himself.
No, it in fact does not. That would be true if Apple were a branch of government, but since it is not, it does not apply here. The Rule of Law currently says that it's Apple's right to kick people off of their platform for any reason not explicitly protected by law, because of a "protected class". Consequently it would be illegal for Apple to kick an app off the platform because it was used by gay people for example, but it's not illegal for them to kick an app off the platform because it was used in the pl
Re: (Score:2)
All the products are made in China. Blame Apple, yes - but don't think for a second that Google, Samsung and the others are not doing exactly the same thing.
Re: Aren't his products made by slave labor? (Score:2)
You'd have a point if your phone was the only Samsung product.
Re:Gay man gets revenge (Score:4, Insightful)
But he doesn't mind kissing Chinese left-wing asses who use slave labor because that's profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
But he doesn't mind kissing Chinese left-wing asses who use slave labor because that's profitable.
Yeah why not. Tim Cook is an American running an American company. His interests extend to his American corporation and having America run by an unstable government would be highly detrimental to him.
Outside of America the rest of the world is just a profit centre number to optimise.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trump had been whipping them into a nutter frenzy with his constant lies for months. Even before the election. he knew he was going to lose and was sowing the seeds for his lies back then.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trump had been whipping them into a nutter frenzy with his constant lies for months.
The thing is, you’ll see this sentence for the crazy it is the moment it gets applied to someone you like.
Humans still have free will, and I personally reject the notion that one adult can “make” another adult do something, short of putting a gun to their head.
So by your logic, if I tell my lover that we can be together but I need them to kill my spouse first, and then they kill my spouse, I have no responsibility for the matter, right? My lover has free will. They made their own decision. What does that have to do with me?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If some youtuber said it, it must be true. Or you could look at the timeline:
https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
There was plenty of time for people to hear him say go to the capitol, then walk there before the first barricade was breached, much less the building itself. But even the distance is irrelevant. It's not like his speech wasn't broadcast live or people didn't have devices they could watch it on remotely from the capitol.
But more importantly, I don't even know what the point of discussing this here i
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
There are alternatives to Twitter. If there aren't, it's not Twitter's fault anyway. This is like YOU want to force a specific famous Hindu singer, who has built up her audience and reputation over time, to sing your Muslim religion's song because you know it will be heard more widely if she sings it.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pretty much" = "Not"
Re: (Score:2)
Chef's kiss for that
Re:It's only incitement if he doesn't like you (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter and Facebook have a process to remove incitement from their platforms, and employ staff to do that job. It might work somewhat slowly most of the time, until a news event causes management to give a specifically targeted order, but it is a functioning process. Parler proposed community moderators, and there was no sign that the community had the will to do anything to curb the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Parler proposed community moderators, and there was no sign that the community had the will to do anything to curb the problem.
Actually it's worse than that. From the leaks it became very clear that Parler did end up moderating including shadow banning users, but the moderators used that power to intensify the echo chamber and make the site even more extreme.
Re: (Score:3)
They flagrantly allow incitement of violence towards people who are deemed "problematic",
Twitter has routinely removed posts and banned people who break their TOS, including incitement to violence. Such as the attorney who called for VP Mike Pence to be executed [businessinsider.com], later banned because he said the attempted coup was staged [forbes.com].
Not sure what your definition of "flagrantly allow" is, but removing such comments quickly seems to be the opposite of what you claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably going to want to back this up with some of that pesky "proof" that often gets in the way of a good narrative. Otherwise you're just parotting more baseless garbage.
Re: It's obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
do you really think Trump voters bought a lot of Apple products?
Yes. They are on average richer than democratic voters. Or at least, they were in the last election. But then, that could be because of the ultra-wealthy among them. I think the median was higher too, though.
Re: (Score:3)
I yearn for the days when the trolls on this site were actually clever.