When the giants banned that app after the incidents in 6 January in US, you see a lot of comment like "free markets" and build your own platform from scratch including banks, ISPs and hosting.
P.S. I am not from US so I am not in a blue or red camp, I just don't like it when some big corporation can lock you out of your account, decide what books you can read, what apps you can install or brick your application/device ( I am thinking at the case where Photoshop stopped working in Venezuela and how on some systems the device will contact the mother ships at boot/resume or when you launch an apo for "security" reasons that could be used in future to block you using the device or app)
Simion314, If you would indulge another non-political poster. Playing devils advocate with and exploring your ps...
>some big corporation
What about a small one?
>lock you out, decide what you read, apps you install or brick your application
Are these an abuse of power? Illegal? Unethical? Is it their right to do these things to maintain some focus? (The example here is often that one does not want profanity, sexual content, violence content where any children or family are involved - if that is acceptable to you, why not the above?)
ps, I also hate it when software won't work without a 'security' handshake.
I am for moderating stuff in general. So if you have a forum and want to ban politics or religious topic that is fine IMO.
I would also be fine if Google or Apple would ban an application because it does something illegal or it's name/icon/description is offensive and it could "pollute" the store listing. I don't like when the giants try to ban some small applications because of user generated content but they never ban YouTube(remember the issues with pedos?)
The issue I have with the giants is that this is not a "Free market", you have only 2 players that are smart enough to correctly play the "prisoner dilemma" so both win.
Maybe in that political case they were right to ban that application but is still uncomfortable to know that 99% of mobile market is censored by the 2 giants.
Conclusion: Moderating content on your website is fine, but banning legal apps or websites because should not be easy, there should be a police,judge or some other official request behind it at least.
Thank you. We disagree on little. However one should be careful with broad terms like' offence'. To whom do you allocate the task of deciding for you what is offensive, is the tricky part.
The silicon corporates do move the goalposts to suit. Governments are not fair all the time. Where you are born impacts hugely on your life. And the laughably named 'free market' has the same flaws.
All of these issues we are discussing will be alleviated, though not eradicated (impossible), the more we move towards an equal and fairer society.
>I also hate it when software won't work without a 'security' handshake.
You are in for a bad time unless you go full FLOSS. The days of shareware and freedom from stupid centralized license enforcement is long dead, sadly.
Don't bother bringing that up on HN though. The Upton Sinclairism "It is difficult to get someone to understand that which their paycheck fepends on them not understanding" applies.
Unless of course you're talking TLS, in which case that handshaking is cool, and responsible, and if done right transparent to the end user.
FLOSS is great but not enough. There are more and more places where you need a smartphone and an application (or else you can't use a service or it will be 100 times more time consuming) IMO all smartphones should have an unlock code. it will be printed in the box you b ought the phone, if you use that you unlock your phone and can install FLOSS apps in it. (now the Apple fanboys will try to change my mind, I will not change my mind, some Android smartphones have a more simpler method to unlock side loading and Google is still full with money, in fact when you go to an official page for an app they link you to the Store and never found a page that gives you the installer.
Of course they did - after all, they wouldn't do it if they thought they were in the wrong. In fairness, the vast majority of those who went to the capitol that day were there for the Trump rally, not smashing up congress.
Hmm, so as long as the firehose of vomit continues to spew from the PR dept, it's all good? All you have to do is make it look like you're doing something?
Never used parler and not defending them but idk why facebook gets a free pass from you, they are far more to blame for the events that transpired IMO.
Facebook doesn't get a free pass from me, I'm just pointing out that Facebook made at least an attempt, publicly, to combat insurrectionists / hate speech while Parler advertised as a safe space for the same.
These are just the facts, interpret them as you wish.
IMO:
Facebook (and YouTube, and Twitter) could and should do a lot more. The more they do the more likely it is they will be legislated out of existence and I'm not sure how they strike a good balance there. I also think Facebook in particular could do better but doesn't want to in order to keep engagement up - yet they want the good PR they can get for banning hate speech. They're trying to have it both ways and are awful. That's still different than Parler where the entire reason it exists is to push radical viewpoints without governance.
No, that's government level. I'm only fine with private entities choosing to do or not do business with whom they please. If google wants to block apps that use encryption then they can do it. Of course that would destroy their business so they won't.
How do you draw the line exactly? What if someone used FB or the official Appole/Google email/chat apps to start a revolution in some country? For illegal stuff you have laws and examples, for this stuff you need to guess what Silicon Valley does not like and censor your content just in case.
For the case you mention, do you think it helped? As I said I am not from US so I have no idea if the were any effects.
