Apple Removes Parler From App Store Due to 'Inadequate' Measures to Address Dangerous Content

[djgamble]

You do not have a right to unlimited free speech. There are a hundred limits on speech, from copyright to sedition. People need to understand that, and Apple is well within their right to limit speech. Twitter did a great post analyzing his language and his incitement of insurrection, when they banned him.

As a lawyer from down under, I find it odd how people in the USA get taught about their 'rights' from a very young age.

I get that the US constitution includes express rights and has a revolutionary vibe about it. However, IMO most would be shocked if you told them:
- A right to bear arms is actually a right to build an army to protect the country. Guns are dealt with under separate legislation and there's no universal right to have one... US citizens need a license to have one and they're not allowed to assault people with them (which can include anything that scares people).
- A right to freedom of speech is more accurately freedom of 'political communication'. That is... no valid political ideology (e.g. socialism or capitalism) can be banned. Heck... Trump's allowed to say the election was rigged and challenge the result in every court (even if he's wrong). It's not a blanket right to threaten people, be racist/discriminatory, incite violence...etc. As with the above, separate legislation governs criminal acts such as assaulting people (e.g. you can't threaten to punch your wife if she leaves you)and discrimination (e.g. you could get in serious trouble if you used the 'n' word on somebody).

 

[gavroche]

Not sure what you're saying, but you have heard of Jan 6, 2021? That was an attempt to overturn the vote, a coup, and make Trump a dictator.

You clearly do not know what a dictator is. But on a different note, some prominent democratic groups are seeking to publish names and information of people that voted Republican. In order to intimidate and retaliate. Obviously with the hope of violence toward them. Do you condemn that as anti-democracatic behavior? Or are you cool with it, since you don’t like Republicans?

 

[vipergts2207]

A lot of people are upset, and feel fraud occurred. Whether or not that is true, people should be allowed to (peacefully) express their displeasure. We just spent the last year watching countless violent protests and takeovers of cities. I live in Seattle, where part of the city was occupied for a long time. People died. And yet neither you nor any democrat voiced any condemnation of those protests right?

You’re just plain misinformed. Get out of your bubble.

Fact check: Democrats have condemned violence linked to BLM, anti-fascist protests

A post claims that no Democrats have advocated for an end to violence by BLM and antifa. That is false — Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and others have.

www.usatoday.com

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

A lot of people are upset, and feel fraud occurred. Whether or not that is true, people should be allowed to (peacefully) express their displeasure. We just spent the last year watching countless violent protests and takeovers of cities. I live in Seattle, where part of the city was occupied for a long time. People died. And yet neither you nor any democrat voiced any condemnation of those protests right?

It was peaceful (in spite of people illegally carrying weapons, stockpiling bombs, etc) until they went through the barricades and entered the Capitol. Then it became an illegal insurrection.

How many of the BLM protests stormed State or Federal Capitols?
The damage done (yes, illegally) in the BLM protests come under State laws (damage to property, arson, etc).
The damage done in the Capitol invasion comes under Federal laws.

People are having a hard time telling the difference between the two.

 

[cwosigns]

You clearly do not know what a dictator is. But on a different note, some prominent democratic groups are seeking to publish names and information of people that voted Republican. In order to intimidate and retaliate. Obviously with the hope of violence toward them. Do you condemn that as anti-democracatic behavior? Or are you cool with it, since you don’t like Republicans?

Source? Correction: legitimate news source dealing in facts?

 

[ian87w]

Unrelated, because in this case they’re denying service because the client allows their platform to be used for planning illegal acts of violence.

Phone calls and SMS can also be used to plan illegal acts of violence. So again, interesting precedent.

 

[5H3PH3RD]

A lot of people are upset, and feel fraud occurred. Whether or not that is true, people should be allowed to (peacefully) express their displeasure. We just spent the last year watching countless violent protests and takeovers of cities. I live in Seattle, where part of the city was occupied for a long time. People died. And yet neither you nor any democrat voiced any condemnation of those protests right?

"Whether or not that is true"

We know its not. It was investigated, over 60 court cases were dismissed, by judges the republicans (and Trump) put in their seats no less. IF after all that you still feel there is fraud then you are either stupid, gullible or mentally ill.

The evidence is also all publicly available.

 

[Professor Rucy]

Coming soon, again... MacRumors Closes Thread, Flag Users Condemning Apple's Actions Against Parler

Or...

Apple, Amazon Removes Extremist Right-Wing Parler App, Site Before Actually Reviewing Its Service

3, 2, one...

 

[5H3PH3RD]

Phone calls and SMS can also be used to plan illegal acts of violence. So again, interesting precedent.

Difference being SMS and Calls are direct peer to peer - other services are one to many.

 

[DonutHands]

Not sure what you're saying, but you have heard of Jan 6, 2021? That was an attempt to overturn the vote, a coup, and make Trump a dictator.

Really? No it wasn't, it was a bunch of unorganized jokers running around inside a building.

 

[ian87w]

Any private company can choose to provide you a service or not for any reason.

No, at least not from my understanding of the US. Eg. remember that bakery who denied a gay wedding cake?

Again, interesting precedent.

 

[DonutHands]

No, sorry, that argument doesn't work on me. If Apple wants to play the censorship game, they need to open up iOS to other app stores / side loading (that doesn't involve Xcode).

No, they don't.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

if what happened on jan 6 didn't change these people's minds, nothing will. i don't know why a bunch of you are in here trying to talk to these people at all. they're about to fade into obscurity where they belong in 10 days, there's no point giving them any attention at this point

 

[dwaite]

This is wrong no matter what your politics. The guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment isn't about speech you agree with, it's about the ability for others you don't agree with to speak.

The guarantee is against government repression of speech, not private industry.

Free speech does not guarantee you a podium, it does not mean people have to listen, and it does not shield you from consequences.

You aren't required to agree with what they say. And labeling opposition speech across the board as "hateful" is a straw dog. Also, the idea that these platforms are private doesn't wash when they hold a near-monopoly on communications (especially when they collaborate like Twitter, Apple, Google, and Facebook have done).

These private industries are providing a podium and megaphone by hosting the infrastructure and amplifying the message to people. They do have their own liability to consider - to their brand, to their morals, and legally.

These companies have not replaced prior communications methods. The massive amplification of messages is just really useful for getting your message out (be it a constructive message, or a call for insurrection and sedition).

This is a very creepy place we are going into. The next step down the road is internet restriction and monitoring like has been done in China. And don't think for a moment if your politics are on the "good" side they won't come for you next.

This is quite the leap, since china has the government moderating content, not private industry.

It is worth noting the government throttle for this sort of behavior is 230 - remove it and platforms have to lock down and moderate all content for liability, change it just right and the platforms only have liability protection if they _don't_ moderate content.

 

[5H3PH3RD]

No, at least not from my understanding of the US. Eg. remember that bakery who denied a gay wedding cake?

Again, interesting precedent.

Yeah I do, the Supreme Court upheld it:

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado baker who refused based on his Christian beliefs to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination...

www.reuters.com

Plus this became a thing because he openly stated why he didn't want to do business with them. He'd have been on stronger standing had he simply refused service with no explanation.

 

[cwosigns]

Really? No it wasn't, it was a bunch of unorganized jokers running around inside a building.

Nor a joke when 5 people died, even if one of them tased his balls until he died (I’m guessing he’s an early contender for a Darwin award).

 

[XNorth]

Really? No it wasn't, it was a bunch of unorganized jokers running around inside a building.

Apologist: one who defends the indefensible by offering an excuse or a distraction, and minimizing the harm or shifting the blame.

 

[deadworlds]

All this is just to ban trump from having a voice, America is becoming a Communist country

The White House has a press room. Nothing is stopping Trump from walking on over there, making a statement, and having it played on all major news sources. No one has taken away his ability to use other forms of Media. What do you think presidents used to do before the Internet?

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

As a lawyer from down under, I find it odd how people in the USA get taught about their 'rights' from a very young age.

I get that the US constitution includes express rights and has a revolutionary vibe about it. However, IMO most would be shocked if you told them:
- A right to bear arms is actually a right to build an army to protect the country. Guns are dealt with under separate legislation and there's no universal right to have one... US citizens need a license to have one and they're not allowed to assault people with them (which can include anything that scares people).
- A right to freedom of speech is more accurately freedom of 'political communication'. That is... no valid political ideology (e.g. socialism or capitalism) can be banned. Heck... Trump's allowed to say the election was rigged and challenge the result in every court (even if he's wrong). It's not a blanket right to threaten people, be racist/discriminatory, incite violence...etc. As with the above, separate legislation governs criminal acts such as assaulting people (e.g. you can't threaten to punch your wife if she leaves you)and discrimination (e.g. you could get in serious trouble if you used the 'n' word on somebody).

Firstly, I have a right to Bare Arms* --

Secondly, you are dealing with facts. Please limit yourself to emotional arguments that have no relationship with reality.

* I only elect not to exercise that right because my Irish Ancestry makes me frizzle up like a vampire(no sparkling) whenever I go out in the sun.

 

[ian87w]

I think part of the problem is, most people here never actually saw the psychotic s*** that was posted to Parler on a regular basis.

Have you? Have you lived in a city where riots of thousands of people are happening right in front of your streets, burning and looting? I have, in my country. The government put out requests to Facebook and other social media outlets to limit/ban certain accounts inciting the violence and spreading hoaxes, but they got practically ignored. So the government ending up pulling the plug on Facebook/Whatsapp/etc for a day to curtail the violence.

This action definitely set a precedent. Other countries are watching.

 

[macfacts]

Why is apple demanding that parler be moderated when no other social media network is moderated.

 

[cwosigns]

Why is apple demanding that parler be moderated when no other social media network is moderated.

You’re joking, right?

 

[5H3PH3RD]

Why is apple demanding that parler be moderated when no other social media network is moderated.

Source? Ironic username.....

 

[cwosigns]

Source? Ironic username.....

Psst. I hope he’s being ironic, but I don’t think he is.

::: twirls fingertip in circles by the side of his head :::

Yikes.

 

[ian87w]

Why is apple demanding that parler be moderated when no other social media network is moderated.

I think from the sound of it. parler should've just pretended that they are trying some kind of moderation. eg. Facebook and the likes claimed moderation, but reality said otherwise, but they're safe since they claimed they have some sort of moderation.

Of course this will go against parler's own claim for their services. But they should just developed a web app to begin with.