So Google has kicked Parler off its app store, and Apple is expected to follow, for "failing to moderate its users content".

Now if that was Al Qaeda using the platform to plan terrorist activities, we'd probably all agree.  But where's the line?  A lot of things Big Tech is censoring appear to simply be opinions they disagree with (like Facebook recently limiting Rush Limbaugh's distribution).  There's a tendency to score opinions they agree with as "fact" or "settled science", and that then those fallacies are used to suppress dissenting views.  Meanwhile, others get away with spreading absolutely ridiculous falsehoods, so long as it aligns with the sacred cows.

The traditional "free market" response has been if you don't like them, then go start a platform to compete with Twitter.  Except Android and IOS control like 97% of the mobile market, meaning if they block a mobile app for your platform you're basically dead in the water.  And if you start becoming successful, they buy you and then evolve it to their purpose.  Both practices would typically run afoul of antitrust laws.

IMO, big tech needs to be broken-up and regulated as a publisher.  There's been a largely hidden and silent war on free speech, and free speech is getting absolutely destroyed.

I'm in no way defending Parler, and I've never been there but hear it's a cesspool.  But if the hurdle is regulating content to their satisfaction, with one millionth the resources, then that's yet another form of anti-competitive behavior. 

I don’t want to live in a vacuum of thought that only allows for a few to speak.  Good or bad I I want all of it.

This isn’t going to work

Apple followed suit and Parler  is basically dead in the water.  I kind of agree with Fletch except that I want the availability to have it all of I choose to look for it. The article that I read said that they warned Parler  to  get in line with their rules and complied with some of it. Apple pulled the plug

I guess that the biggest problem I have with it is who gets to make these decisions and what is their agenda?

posted by gut

So Google has kicked Parler off its app store, and Apple is expected to follow, for "failing to moderate its users content".

Now if that was Al Qaeda using the platform to plan terrorist activities, we'd probably all agree.  But where's the line?  A lot of things Big Tech is censoring appear to simply be opinions they disagree with (like Facebook recently limiting Rush Limbaugh's distribution).  There's a tendency to score opinions they agree with as "fact" or "settled science", and that then those fallacies are used to suppress dissenting views.  Meanwhile, others get away with spreading absolutely ridiculous falsehoods, so long as it aligns with the sacred cows.

The traditional "free market" response has been if you don't like them, then go start a platform to compete with Twitter.  Except Android and IOS control like 97% of the mobile market, meaning if they block a mobile app for your platform you're basically dead in the water.  And if you start becoming successful, they buy you and then evolve it to their purpose.  Both practices would typically run afoul of antitrust laws.

IMO, big tech needs to be broken-up and regulated as a publisher.  There's been a largely hidden and silent war on free speech, and free speech is getting absolutely destroyed.

I'm in no way defending Parler, and I've never been there but hear it's a cesspool.  But if the hurdle is regulating content to their satisfaction, with one millionth the resources, then that's yet another form of anti-competitive behavior. 

What's going to stop the next big tech company from doing the same thing, if you provide them a path after you break up these other companies?  In hindsight, you can make a good argument, that the Micrsofot monopoly break up was unncessary. 

BTW, there will be a lot of people (on this site and outside), that will pretend to embrace the free market and argue that a private business can serve who they want, as if this is some "GOTCHA" argument.  These same people for almost one year have been supportive of Government restrictions on businesses during the entire pandemic. 

In other words, most people taking the free market angle on this topic are 100% full of shit, and you probably can find (or have) the receipts, whether it is on the site or somewhere else. 

So private companies can do what they want?  Unless you are the local resturant or bar?

I think these are the type of posts that caused it 

posted by geeblock

I think these are the type of posts that caused it 

What did your love have to say in that text though? 

posted by like_that

What did your love have to say in that text though? 

Hopefully telling him that the dollar sign goes BEFORE the number, and not after.

posted by like_that

What's going to stop the next big tech company from doing the same thing, if you provide them a path after you break up these other companies?  In hindsight, you can make a good argument, that the Micrsofot monopoly break up was unncessary. 

I didn't think Microsoft was ever broken up?  They've been fined numerous times, and the most famous was installing Explore as the default browser (which killed Netscape - had to look that one up!)

You're going to argue other browsers would eventually come along to compete.  And you might not be wrong, but without those antitrust rules MS might have simply blocked you from installing it, or other shenanigans.

The truth is the FTC and other organizations have incorrectly looked the other way while the big tech companies have gobbled up all the competition in their vertical, and expanded into new verticals and done the same thing.

posted by like_that

What did your love have to say in that text though? 

It was a screenshot from Facebook not my post/text 

posted by like_that

BTW, there will be a lot of people (on this site and outside), that will pretend to embrace the free market and argue that a private business can serve who they want

The problem with free market theory is it relies on assumptions that simply don't exist in the real world, hence the need for regulation to ensure fair play.

And now Amazon has kicked Parler off their server.  It's a bad poster child for censorship, but I can't remember anyone being sanctioned while BLM and Antifa planned violent demonstration on social media, or flash mobs in recent years doing it.

Again, I don't have much of an issue with a private business restricting dangerous and violent rhetoric, but it goes much further than that.  And they don't apply it equally to the leftwing groups.

Parler hasn't broken any laws, that I'm aware of.  It's not a free market when a handful of companies are gatekeepers and discriminate based on politics.

posted by gut

The problem with free market theory is it relies on assumptions that simply don't exist in the real world, hence the need for regulation to ensure fair play.

And now Amazon has kicked Parler off their server.  It's a bad poster child for censorship, but I can't remember anyone being sanctioned while BLM and Antifa planned violent demonstration on social media, or flash mobs in recent years doing it.

Again, I don't have much of an issue with a private business restricting dangerous and violent rhetoric, but it goes much further than that.  And they don't apply it equally to the leftwing groups.

Parler hasn't broken any laws, that I'm aware of.  It's not a free market when a handful of companies are gatekeepers and discriminate based on politics.

That’s because it never happened lol 

posted by like_that

BTW, there will be a lot of people (on this site and outside), that will pretend to embrace the free market and argue that a private business can serve who they want, as if this is some "GOTCHA" argument.  These same people for almost one year have been supportive of Government restrictions on businesses during the entire pandemic. 

In other words, most people taking the free market angle on this topic are 100% full of shit, and you probably can find (or have) the receipts, whether it is on the site or somewhere else. 

Well, what do you propose Mr. Slippery slope? 

You are all talk and zero actual policy solutions. 

By policy solutions, I mean something that is actual realistic and doesn't live in your fantasy world of saying everyone is full of shit and complaining. 

I think it is combination of letting the companies grow in the free market, but setting up light guard rails for them to not cross. That could be monitored by oversight that should be beefed up and modernized. Congress should also be really up to speed on all of this as they are behind the times. Some of the questions during the committee hearings were a joke. 

If you look back over some of the critical counter terrorism ISIS reading from the early 2010s, there is some blueprint of the current actions. 

The companies have created a framework for kicking off people that either use violence or have violent language. That framework should be constantly updated in coordinate with federal regulators, the light guard rails approach. 

posted by geeblock

That’s because it never happened lol 

How long have you lived in Chicago?  Because that's where teens were using social media to organize flash mobs when they would loot and beat people up.  I think it happened at least half a dozen times a few summers ago.

And BLM and Antifa is pretty well documented.  It's hilarious how far up your own ass you have your head.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-lawmakers-crack-down-on-social-media-flash-mobs

posted by ptown_trojans_1

If you look back over some of the critical counter terrorism ISIS reading from the early 2010s, there is some blueprint of the current actions.

Like I said, Parler isn't a good example it just prompted the topic.

And it's not just about terrorism.  They are now "fact checking" opinions, which tend to be mostly conservative views.  Or you can say opinions stated as fact, but in this case it's sort of a distinction without a difference.

I also don't think it will end here.  Parler can start playing wack-a-mole, but ultimately this debate will come full circle to big tech censoring speech they don't agree with.  And it's not applied equally to the leftwing nutjobs.  When Kathy Griffin made her decapitated Trump joke, Twitter banned her for all of 12 hours.  Safe bet if someone made the same joke about Biden Twitter would delete the account.

If the tables were turned, the Dems would break them up and/or regulate the hell out of big tech faster than you could blink.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Well, what do you propose Mr. Slippery slope? 

You are all talk and zero actual policy solutions. 

By policy solutions, I mean something that is actual realistic and doesn't live in your fantasy world of saying everyone is full of shit and complaining. 

I am fine with saying that I have no short term solutions right now, mr. unprincipled.  Outside of lawsuits or Government regulations, I can't think of any quick fix solutions as it stands now.   I think the former can help in the short term, but in the long run it will only be harmful.  The free market is not supposed to be comfortable, but when shit like this happens we see knee jerk decisions made all of the time.  

Regardless, you being a fake tough guy now and not understanding my slippery slope argument, does not change my point.  It doesn't change the fact that people are going to present the argument I mentioned, when they are 100% full of shit.  

Edit: I meant to provide my prediction. I don’t see any laws and regulations in the near future with the Dems in control. It’s 100% in their favor, so they will not give a fuck. More than likely we are going to see some lawsuits that challenge the monopoly and/or their status as a publisher vs platform.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I think it is combination of letting the companies grow in the free market, but setting up light guard rails for them to not cross. That could be monitored by oversight that should be beefed up and modernized. Congress should also be really up to speed on all of this as they are behind the times. Some of the questions during the committee hearings were a joke. 

If you look back over some of the critical counter terrorism ISIS reading from the early 2010s, there is some blueprint of the current actions. 

The companies have created a framework for kicking off people that either use violence or have violent language. That framework should be constantly updated in coordinate with federal regulators, the light guard rails approach. 

You called me out for policy and your grand plan is summed up as “sprinkle some free market and government regulations?” Thank you for enlightening us with buzz terms/solutions.  I could have given you a similar solution, if you wanted me to waste your time as well.

Also, thank you for letting us know that our geriatric reps/senators need to speed up on the intricacies of modern day technology. My mind is blown.  

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/11/payment-processor-stripe-blacklists-trump-campaign/

Ok, this has to be illegal on multiple fronts.  If they allow political donations to any other group and not Trump, that has to be illegal.

Also illegal would likely be this activity if they are receiving any benefit from government regulations or deregulations.

posted by like_that

The free market is not supposed to be comfortable, but when shit like this happens we see knee jerk decisions made all of the time. 

People have been talking about this for at least a few years, since the millennials freaked out when they finally realized how Google makes its money (as if it was some big mystery).  Millenials are VERY concerned about privacy, free speech not so much.

And, IMO, if the antitrust laws had been properly applied we might not be here.  Google wouldn't have been allowed to buy Youtube.  Facebook wouldn't have been able to buy Instagram.  And so on.

It's ironic that Big Tech, which have been crying about Section 230 all year (a.k.a "we shouldn't be held liable for what individuals post"), are blocking Parler because of what users are posting there.

Maybe "breakup" is too extreme and unnecessary.  But they are publishers, and they need to be regulated as such.  They DEFINITELY should not be able to hide behind Section 230, which is actually intended to protect new/growing companies like Parler, and not giant enterprises that have nearly unlimited resources.

posted by gut

People have been talking about this for at least a few years, since the millennials freaked out when they finally realized how Google makes its money (as if it was some big mystery).  Millenials are VERY concerned about privacy, free speech not so much.

And, IMO, if the antitrust laws had been properly applied we might not be here.  Google wouldn't have been allowed to buy Youtube.  Facebook wouldn't have been able to buy Instagram.  And so on.

It's ironic that Big Tech, which have been crying about Section 230 all year (a.k.a "we shouldn't be held liable for what individuals post"), are blocking Parler because of what users are posting there.

Maybe "breakup" is too extreme and unnecessary.  But they are publishers, and they need to be regulated as such.  They DEFINITELY should not be able to hide behind Section 230, which is actually intended to protect new/growing companies like Parler, and not giant enterprises that have nearly unlimited resources.

Exactly why I predict we will see a good amount of lawsuits. Big tech companies are contradicting themselves with their words and actions. They are opening themselves up, and it will be interesting to see if some of these cases reach high level judges.  If it comes down to that, history has shown us in the last couple of decades it sometimes comes down to where the judges lean. 

I never expected the case against Trump regarding whether he was allowed to block people on social media to get anywhere, until a federal judge ruled he was not allowed to block anyone.  A precedent was set right there for courts to make rulings on similar cases, so now I won’t be surprised by anything. 

posted by like_that

Exactly why I predict we will see a good amount of lawsuits....I never expected the case against Trump regarding whether he was allowed to block people on social media to get anywhere, until a federal judge ruled he was not allowed to block anyone.  A precedent was set right there for courts to make rulings on similar cases, so now I won’t be surprised by anything.

Hard to say.  I don't think legal challenges will get very far - big tech will hide behind contracts, and politics is not a protected class to base discrimination suits on.  It would also seem hard to make the case that it's anti-competitive behavior because of politics.

But who knows.  It would be funny if Amazon responded to Parler's claims of economic damage with how much free publicity they've generated for them.

Ya'll saw AOC asking Apple and Google to go after others/do more, yes?

Also, Twitter Public Policy - after perm banning Trump and several other conservatives - just dropped this gem about an hour ago (thread):

Ahead of the Ugandan election, we're hearing reports that Internet service providers are being ordered to block social media and messaging apps.

We strongly condemn internet shutdowns – they are hugely harmful, violate basic human rights and the principles of the #OpenInternet.

— Twitter Public Policy (@Policy) January 12, 2021

AOC references

What are @Apple and @GooglePlay doing about this? https://t.co/Upb2BxZOQZ

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 8, 2021

Good to see this development from @Apple. @GooglePlay what are you going to do about apps being used to organize violence on your platform? https://t.co/wWVSERcRSH

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) January 8, 2021