Parler Tricks: Making Software Disappear(puri.sm)
puri.sm
Parler Tricks: Making Software Disappear
https://puri.sm/posts/parler-tricks-making-software-disappear/
175 comments
When your DNS provider removes your record...
When your cellular connection becomes an app...
When your contact list is removed or hidden...
When your text app is locked...
When your ISP kills your account...
When your webhost provider deletes your site and/or content...
When they selectively track your location and post it to political groups they support...
When your car GPS stops navigating.
When your car won't start to support a suggested lockdown they support...
When your cable channel drops all "opposing" news media...
How much of Orwell's 1984 do you want?
When your cellular connection becomes an app...
When your contact list is removed or hidden...
When your text app is locked...
When your ISP kills your account...
When your webhost provider deletes your site and/or content...
When they selectively track your location and post it to political groups they support...
When your car GPS stops navigating.
When your car won't start to support a suggested lockdown they support...
When your cable channel drops all "opposing" news media...
How much of Orwell's 1984 do you want?
I believe 1984 was about the government rewriting reality and not private industry.
"The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the damned snobbish critics said, were dishwater. No wonder books stopped selling, the critics said. But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic- books survive. And the three-dimensional sex-magazines, of course. There you have it, Montag. It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals."
While that's a nice quote and all, you are responding to someone talking about the story 1984 by George Orwell. Whereas your quote is from Farenheiht 451 by Ray Bradbury.
I'm not sure if you've actually ready the story or you just like the quote, but it's actually not about government censorship, it's about TV replacing books. Even a short Google search will help you out there.
I'm not sure if you've actually ready the story or you just like the quote, but it's actually not about government censorship, it's about TV replacing books. Even a short Google search will help you out there.
Hi Roy,
Um, that was my point
slowhand09 spoke of this being Orwellian, but as you point and jf22 point out, these actions are done by private actors, not government
So read that Bradbury quote again, in the context of private companies burning books or deplatforming private citizen speech
"It didn't come from the Government down... Technology, mass exploitation and minority [referring to interests not races] pressure carried the trick"
Um, that was my point
slowhand09 spoke of this being Orwellian, but as you point and jf22 point out, these actions are done by private actors, not government
So read that Bradbury quote again, in the context of private companies burning books or deplatforming private citizen speech
"It didn't come from the Government down... Technology, mass exploitation and minority [referring to interests not races] pressure carried the trick"
Whichever one of the two is the biggest bully doesn't matter, in reality they can both act like Big Brother. I think CS Lewis' N.I.C.E from That Hideous Strength is more true to life than 1984.
I don't care whether it's a corporate or government logo on the boot stamping on my face.
What's the difference for the people?
Which people and what scenario?
At a base level comparing a government telling you which fictional truths to believe to a private company providing a technology service is difficult.
At a base level comparing a government telling you which fictional truths to believe to a private company providing a technology service is difficult.
> private company providing a technology service
You mean "private company deciding what is right and wrong"?
You mean "private company deciding what is right and wrong"?
Yes, a private company can decide people who wear orange shirts are wrong and ban access from people wearing orange shirts.
Can a private water company decide that people in orange shirts should not get water? Same here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835408.
When the private industry can censor the government, or outright purchase them, the difference is blurred
The 1984 comparisons are apt. We already see them unpersoning people and employing memory holes.
The 1984 comparisons are apt. We already see them unpersoning people and employing memory holes.
Nobody is censoring the government.
Why, sure they are.
They censored the president under phony pretenses. They've censored Senator Hawley's book. They censored other government officials from even uttering the name "Eric Ciaramella", even though he was certainly not a whistleblower and even if so, not legally entitled to such a level of privacy.
But to be more accurate, they're censoring non-liberals. This is evidenced by the fact that actual dictatorial regimes with many many violent deaths on their hands are allowed access to those avenues of communication without a fraction of the editorial control than was the President of the USA.
Other politicians, who have the "D" by their name (the government equivalent of a blue checkmark apparently) are allowed to spread hoaxes and lies for years and call for harassment and violence towards their political enemies, and big tech allows it to stand. Because they agree with it.
One only need to see the Googlers crying in the hallways after Hillary's defeat in 2016 to know why. They got their feelings hurt and vowed to never let it happen again, by any means necessary. And they are people with significant means to control what you may or may not say in the digital public square, if they don't simply decide to unperson you entirely.
They censored the president under phony pretenses. They've censored Senator Hawley's book. They censored other government officials from even uttering the name "Eric Ciaramella", even though he was certainly not a whistleblower and even if so, not legally entitled to such a level of privacy.
But to be more accurate, they're censoring non-liberals. This is evidenced by the fact that actual dictatorial regimes with many many violent deaths on their hands are allowed access to those avenues of communication without a fraction of the editorial control than was the President of the USA.
Other politicians, who have the "D" by their name (the government equivalent of a blue checkmark apparently) are allowed to spread hoaxes and lies for years and call for harassment and violence towards their political enemies, and big tech allows it to stand. Because they agree with it.
One only need to see the Googlers crying in the hallways after Hillary's defeat in 2016 to know why. They got their feelings hurt and vowed to never let it happen again, by any means necessary. And they are people with significant means to control what you may or may not say in the digital public square, if they don't simply decide to unperson you entirely.
The neoliberal Democrats and Silicon Valley seem to be in kind of in a lovers-gone-haters relationship though, it’s more complicated than what you’re suggesting. They were really loving each other in the Obama years, remember when social media was hailed in liberal media as a positive force for democracy (alluding to the various Spring revolutions)? I mean, Obama’s campaign used private Facebook data no less than Trump did, and liberal media even spun that as a good thing at that time! The problem is once that same technology was soon to be used against the neoliberals from both left/right wing populism (Occupy Wall Street and Bernie for the left, Trumpism for the right), that’s when their relationship got shakened quite a bit and now we’re up to the point where the Dems are filing antitrust regulations against Google. The neoliberals got a bit afraid that the new technocrats (Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) would accumulate enough power to do whatever they want (against their interests, although so far big tech's interests just seemed to be about making as much money as possible with disregard for anything else), so liberal media began spewing out one of the most blatantly aggressive narratives that social media was the sole fault in the rise of Trumpism (well, only partially so, the more substantial reason has to do with US neoliberal policies leading to deindustrialization, along with the greater urban/rural inequality divide). I mean, SV companies have their faults, but it’s not just them responsible for this whole mess. Anyways, the mainstream Dems finally got the big social media companies to censor as they please, but that’s only after the populist left/right started to look for decentralized or encrypted alternatives, albeit slowly (Telegram/Signal/Mastodon/Pleroma/Lemmy/etc).
I think we're now there, given how close Big Tech and Democrats are, and have been, for a long time.
Private industry is clearly operating in the interests of "public" power.
The private industry made Biden president.
What about private industry acting as a government, with similar power.
Again, private companies really need to remain smaller. The size of the companies are completely out of control. So do they have too much control? Of course.
With that said, they are only doing what they know the masses want. So in a way, they're just doing the people's bidding. If Google thought the majority wanted Parler and hate speech, they'd certainly have kept it up.
With that said, they are only doing what they know the masses want. So in a way, they're just doing the people's bidding. If Google thought the majority wanted Parler and hate speech, they'd certainly have kept it up.
When I worked at Facebook, the wide-audience internal feeds were kind of dominated by very um.. progressive, enthusiastic messaging that I’d even call activism. And it was considered cool to participate and be in that.. well, ‘clique’ may not be exactly the word but it’s close.
I actually did think it was cool! However, if there were any right wing folks there, naturally they kept quiet.
Also, there are a huge number of conservatives and moderates using Facebook. The main point I’m trying to make is that it is misguided to believe that these companies do not have their very own conscience / worldview / quite strongly held political values.
I actually did think it was cool! However, if there were any right wing folks there, naturally they kept quiet.
Also, there are a huge number of conservatives and moderates using Facebook. The main point I’m trying to make is that it is misguided to believe that these companies do not have their very own conscience / worldview / quite strongly held political values.
Facebook literally tweaked algorithms to advantage right conservative websites. If the planned change would disadvantage them, the change was modified until they ended up on top.
Sure, but a 1984 comparison is not appropriate here.
Why not? Will you care who oppresses you?
This reply cannot possibly be a good faith addition to the discussion.
Accusing people of bad faith is against HN policy.
While true, fsflover has not made any statements and is only posting questions. He's "JAQing off" [0], so to speak. It's a hallmark of bad faith arguing.
[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
I honestly don't understand why the 1984 comparison is not appropriate here, because the book is about the oppression. I don't know how it's for you guys (that's why I asked), but for me it does not matter who oppresses me, government or corporations.
It most definitely is.
Hell. Even Twilio (a common carrier) banned Parler. AFAICT Parler wasn't using Twilio to forward harassing messages. It used it for 2FA. And I'm sure they'll get away with it. It's just nuts.
For what it's worth, Twilio states they did not ban Parler. Some rando Twitter comment thread started that rumor.
https://twitter.com/twilio/status/1348719143172927491?s=20
Twilio said the Parler platform was in violation of the acceptable use policy (not just the use of Twilio services), and was told by Parler that they had already disabled Twilio.
https://twitter.com/twilio/status/1348719143172927491?s=20
Twilio said the Parler platform was in violation of the acceptable use policy (not just the use of Twilio services), and was told by Parler that they had already disabled Twilio.
A common carrier can't ban you from using their services because they happen to not like aspects of your business. Parler was sending 2fa codes with twilio. They were not using twilio sms as an interface to parler's user generated content.
You obviously have not read and understood any of 1984 if you believe that. Please describe how every action you list related to Parler and 1984.
For a company who knew that they were bound to fall foul of the ideological stances of their providers, they should have planned for such an event.
The most likely reason for that is that the companies owners were fake people who wanted to profile a particular segment of the society, or they were poorly advised by the IT guys.
The most likely reason for that is that the companies owners were fake people who wanted to profile a particular segment of the society, or they were poorly advised by the IT guys.
>Why is the lack of an app on the App Store or Play such a major hindrance?
Would an alarm clock on browser be more easy to use, ergonomic and more private in a web page ?
I was reflecting on the issue with music steaming giants, so I had the idea to have the musicians form a cooperative and create their own service where all the money goes to the creators. The first issue I see is Apple and Google will not allow your app in the Store without paying them a big tax and using web page for music steaming would for sure use a lot more battery and it will not have access to the nice native APIs so good luck competing with the giants.
Would an alarm clock on browser be more easy to use, ergonomic and more private in a web page ?
I was reflecting on the issue with music steaming giants, so I had the idea to have the musicians form a cooperative and create their own service where all the money goes to the creators. The first issue I see is Apple and Google will not allow your app in the Store without paying them a big tax and using web page for music steaming would for sure use a lot more battery and it will not have access to the nice native APIs so good luck competing with the giants.
> Why is the lack of an app on the App Store or Play such a major hindrance?
Many of the things you can do in a native app are not possible with web APIs. That isn’t going to change because the companies writing web specs have a strategic interest in reserving access to coveted operating system features and APIs for their native app platforms, e.g. push notifications, fast graphics, media capture. Local storage is also being crippled under the guise of privacy - Safari now deletes local data after 7 days unless you add the website to your home screen.
Many of the things you can do in a native app are not possible with web APIs. That isn’t going to change because the companies writing web specs have a strategic interest in reserving access to coveted operating system features and APIs for their native app platforms, e.g. push notifications, fast graphics, media capture. Local storage is also being crippled under the guise of privacy - Safari now deletes local data after 7 days unless you add the website to your home screen.
There are plenty of apps that don't have a web version. Like the carsharing app I use, for example. Only exists for Android and iOS.
> I mean, you could just open up your favorite web browser and go to any website you'd like.
Only if you're willing to hit Russian servers...
Only if you're willing to hit Russian servers...
More like "only while you're still allowed to hit Russian servers". With Carrier-Grade NAT leaving people without their own real public IPs, we're already past the point where people have true unfettered internet access and the freedom to hit / be hit by any IP they wish.
I'm not scared of the Russians. The whole thing feels like a lukewarm, microwaved version of the Cold War, and frankly, it's more Hollywood than it is real. "Russian hackers!!!" could be anyone who has a $2/mo Russian proxy address; you can get yourself a /32 of Russian IPv6 space for peanuts; there's no way to know where anyone's really operating from. Unless you think the MaxMinds GeoIP database is somehow irrefutable evidence of state actions....
I'm not scared of the Russians. The whole thing feels like a lukewarm, microwaved version of the Cold War, and frankly, it's more Hollywood than it is real. "Russian hackers!!!" could be anyone who has a $2/mo Russian proxy address; you can get yourself a /32 of Russian IPv6 space for peanuts; there's no way to know where anyone's really operating from. Unless you think the MaxMinds GeoIP database is somehow irrefutable evidence of state actions....
Aside from the obvious marketing attempt at the end, they are correct in stating this, no matter how you feel about [whichever is the latest thing the 2 app stores decide to remove], the fact that they can practically prevent near everyone from accessing any services that are provided as apps by simply agreeing to remove the app from both stores is way too much power in the hand of a few huge corporations. The duopoly of app stores is the issue here, not so much the removal of something the app store owners find objectionable. I am aware that there are other app stores (f-droid, other android phone companies having their own app stores that they sometimes/used to shove in phones as bloatware, not sure about Apple's phones if there is any such thing), but you need to go out of your way to get them, and most people don't bother, so the reach they have is tiny as opposed to the combined reach of 100% of the market share of app stores the Google/Apple duopoly has. Something that is removed from both app stores effectively doesn't exist for most people.
I mostly agree. However it is a sad state of mind for most people, because web browsers provide an app interface for many purposes. There are so many sites that I don’t want to use the crappy available app for- if the company can’t make a good website, I’m always dubious it can code a decent app.
Services, not software. They can make services disappear. A famous rant [0] is applicable here; the way that these corporations exercise control is by owning the underlying hardware. If one wants to avoid this sort of corporate control, then one needs to encourage folks to use Free Software on their own machines.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
I mean, yes, this is true, but Purism probably shouldn't be picking this hill to market on.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
-H. L. Mencken
Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here? Companies make choices about who they want to do business with all the time. If the argument is that Google and Apple shouldn't be able to ban any apps on their respective stores, it would require enacting a law to force that upon them.
The Google and Apple duopoly may be something that requires regulatory action but I don't see how a store should be forced to sell or distribute any product from a company whose conduct they find objectionable.
The Google and Apple duopoly may be something that requires regulatory action but I don't see how a store should be forced to sell or distribute any product from a company whose conduct they find objectionable.
I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate.
> I have no issue with app stores moderating their own service. I just want 10 equally reach weighted stores instead of 2 that coordinate.
Do you have evidence that Apple, Google, and Amazon actually coordinated (e.g. met and agreed on a common plan)? I think it's more likely that they made similar judgements based on the same information.
Do you have evidence that Apple, Google, and Amazon actually coordinated (e.g. met and agreed on a common plan)? I think it's more likely that they made similar judgements based on the same information.
Coordination doesnt need to be explicit, it can be circumstantial. And further, coordination isnt a requirement for a duopoly to simply exist and be anti free market. But to put the tin foil hat on, it would be naive to think the heads of these companies do not talk to their parallels. Its a pretty small club at the top. Obviously I do not have access to their calls and meetings and can prove none of this but I've worked with high up executives in other fields and know how the sausage is made even in more fragmented markets.
Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating
This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
What loophole? “Twitter took the first step, so now it’s safe for us to” isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”. If you want to talk about the insane power these platforms have, that’s one thing, but to claim that they’re “conspiring” (I’m assuming you mean to deplatform conservative views) isn’t arguing in good faith.
The only difference between conspiring and conscious parallelism is saying that you're doing it out loud.
Let's use the classic example -- raising prices.
Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal.
So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices.
Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money.
Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price.
It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole.
And it's also the difference here:
> isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”.
The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically.
Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.
Let's use the classic example -- raising prices.
Suppose you have a market with two companies. If they get together in a room and conspire to fix prices, that's illegal.
So here's what they do instead. First, one of them raises prices. They know that isn't going to end well for them unless the other one does it, because otherwise they'll lose business to the other one which now has a lower price. If the other one doesn't promptly respond by raising prices too, they'll have to lower them again. So that action is really an invitation to coordinate in raising prices.
Because they both know that. It's obvious that the one can't profitably raise prices unless the other one does. So now the other company has a choice. Option one, leave prices where they are, causing their competitor to have to lower them again before their own company actually gains any significant market share as a result of the lower prices. Option two, raise prices to match, and now they both make more money.
Option two is better for both companies. They both make more money and the only risk is that the higher margins attract a third competitor who comes in to undercut them. If that isn't likely or can be made unlikely through some exclusionary mechanism then they both get to raise prices to the monopoly price.
It's exactly the same thing as the price fixing conspiracy except that they never said it out loud. It's a loophole.
And it's also the difference here:
> isn’t collusion anymore than when someone joins Parler/Gab because it’s the “hip new thing”.
The users are too diffuse for the coordination mechanism to operate, and without it they don't have market power. At the point when each site has a proportionate share of the users, no individual user has any reason to use a given site other than because they like it better, and their individual choice doesn't affect the collective outcome enough to justify making it strategically.
Basically, it only applies to concentrated markets.
>> Bandwagoning isn’t coordinating
> This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.
> This is a loophole that deserves to be closed.
How is it a loophole? It's freedom of association, which is protected by the First Amendment.
I just want no app stores. Completely useless middleman.
So the phone Purism advertises in the article should suit you well. It's a desktop GNU/Linux, so you can install everything as you wish.
I've been watching it very closely for years. I've been waiting for it to become a little more stable as a product. It might already be there for me, but I just bought a Jelly 2 and I'm liking the smallness for now. I use F-Droid to install most apps I use anyway, which isn't many.
Except that very often the app is not available for that platform.
Okay.
People have been developing for Windows and excluding Linux for decades. Demanding that people develop for your very niche desired use case is just going to be unreasonable a huge amount of the time.
People have been developing for Windows and excluding Linux for decades. Demanding that people develop for your very niche desired use case is just going to be unreasonable a huge amount of the time.
> your very niche desired use case
I don't think that my bank (SBanken) would agree that its app (which is very good by the way) is serving a niche use case but they nonetheless only provide it for unrooted Android and IPhone.
I don't think that my bank (SBanken) would agree that its app (which is very good by the way) is serving a niche use case but they nonetheless only provide it for unrooted Android and IPhone.
Apparently, not enough people do to make it economically sustainable.
Which is why antitrust enforcement is important.
Which is hard to do when a cartel greases our representatives in direct and indirect bribery (record setting campaign donations and banning their political opposition).
Right... only most of the world's population...
That's a nice fantasy you're having. What magical power is supposed to ensure that whole "equally reach weighted" part? Because I'll lay 10:1 odds that guaranteeing that would be much more oppressive than a one-time temporary ban on a Nazi app.
The DOJ handles antitrust. Its not fantasy for anyone thats looks to history, you might remember when telecom was broken up. That was reach that was then fragmented. This issue is larger than your individual assessment of what Parler was and regardless of what "side" you are on politically.
You can't geo-divide an app store...Also the way DOJ broke up Ma Bell is largely viewed as a failure given the amount of company consolidation that occurred in the years following
Who said we are going to geo-divide app stores? The failure was the follow up effort of the DOJ for not blocking mergers thereafter, not the initial break-up.
It would take a large stroke of global authoritarian action to get what you want. There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now. Any more and you divide the development base too thin, companies cut budgets, and you end up with... two stores.
> There are 2 stores because that's about what the market can support right now.
I think this restrictions is caused by their walled-garden approach. If we forced interoperability, the situation would immediately improve.
I think this restrictions is caused by their walled-garden approach. If we forced interoperability, the situation would immediately improve.
In other words Apple needs to let other app stores into their phones as an example.
For the record there are dozens of alt app stores on Android.
And how many people use them? We are talking about the duopoly.
> If the argument is that Google and Apple shouldn't be able to ban any apps on their respective stores, it would require enacting a law to force that upon them.
It doesn't have to be as black and white as that. The law could restrict their moderating powers to only removing malicious apps (defined by a reasonable heuristic); much as you may dislike the content, most badthink social networks are not also hacking your phone at the same time.
It doesn't have to be as black and white as that. The law could restrict their moderating powers to only removing malicious apps (defined by a reasonable heuristic); much as you may dislike the content, most badthink social networks are not also hacking your phone at the same time.
In the same way a grocery store isn't required by law to carry your home goods/food product, a law that requires Google and Apple to host ANY app would be incredibly short-sighted.
Yeah, fair to some extent, perhaps the requirement needs to be for people who purchase devices to have the right to install software on them. Then you can just use an alternate app store / sideload / whatever and Google et al can still curate to their hearts' content.
How will you define that heuristic? In some sense that’s what they did. Having clean heuristic in a complicated world is impossible. For example, are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters ?
> are Kashmiri separatists terrorists or freedom fighters
Ultimately, I don't care; I support their right to free speech as much as I support anyone else's. It's for the law enforcement that has jurisdiction over them to decide what they want to do with what is posted.
Ultimately, I don't care; I support their right to free speech as much as I support anyone else's. It's for the law enforcement that has jurisdiction over them to decide what they want to do with what is posted.
> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here?
"Code is law" -Lawrence Lessig
But if you're looking for a government law, how about any of the ones that allow people who create alternate app stores via jailbreaks to be prosecuted.
"Code is law" -Lawrence Lessig
But if you're looking for a government law, how about any of the ones that allow people who create alternate app stores via jailbreaks to be prosecuted.
I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more.
Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
> I don't know the laws of every country, but I don't think it's illegal to jailbreak your phone or create/use an alternate app store in the United States. Your phone just won't be supported any more.
Companies have argued that it violates DMCA 1201 because you could plausibly use the other app store to install pirated apps or something like that.
They're trying to have it both ways, of course, so they tolerate a couple of small irrelevant stores in order to claim that there are competitors even though they still have >95% of the market. But now explain why Amazon or Microsoft doesn't make their own app store for iOS. Or just sell a mod officially supported by one of these large companies that allows any arbitrary store to be installed on one of their competitors' platforms.
> Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
It is if it's the reason they can't just distribute through a different app store.
Companies have argued that it violates DMCA 1201 because you could plausibly use the other app store to install pirated apps or something like that.
They're trying to have it both ways, of course, so they tolerate a couple of small irrelevant stores in order to claim that there are competitors even though they still have >95% of the market. But now explain why Amazon or Microsoft doesn't make their own app store for iOS. Or just sell a mod officially supported by one of these large companies that allows any arbitrary store to be installed on one of their competitors' platforms.
> Circumventing digital rights management to violate copyright protection is illegal, but that wouldn't be relevant to the Parler situation.
It is if it's the reason they can't just distribute through a different app store.
I feel like this argument is setting up a false dichotomy between saying it's the platforms' legal right and just throwing up your hands up and declaring "who care?"
Plenty of activities are legal, but censured by cultural norms. Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. That doesn't mean there's a simple legal solution. But at the very least the users, from any part of the political spectrum, should be pissed off that the overlords in Mountain View have decided that certain ideas are too dangerous for their little brains.
Plenty of activities are legal, but censured by cultural norms. Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do. That doesn't mean there's a simple legal solution. But at the very least the users, from any part of the political spectrum, should be pissed off that the overlords in Mountain View have decided that certain ideas are too dangerous for their little brains.
> Prohibiting your users from participating in a discussion, because you don't like their political views should at least be recognized as a shitty thing to do.
Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare.
Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare.
> Framing this as purely based on political views is disingenuous at best. No one is getting banned because they don't like the tax rate, or because of their view on universal healthcare.
Exactly right. Nothing would have happened to Parler if its userbase wasn't substantially affiliated with a mob that literally attacked the democratic process because they didn't like the result.
I'm sure someone's thinking that the correct response to that is have the government police forces battle with the mob until it changes its mind of its own accord, rather than have (non-government) society take action against the root causes of the mob, like Parler. However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious.
Exactly right. Nothing would have happened to Parler if its userbase wasn't substantially affiliated with a mob that literally attacked the democratic process because they didn't like the result.
I'm sure someone's thinking that the correct response to that is have the government police forces battle with the mob until it changes its mind of its own accord, rather than have (non-government) society take action against the root causes of the mob, like Parler. However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious.
> However, that's undesirable for reasons that should be obvious.
Not to mention entirely ignorant of the very notion of our government being ostensibly "by the people, of the people, for the people" - i.e. the government itself being a representation of society. So if society itself is broadly rejecting some viewpoint on its own, then it's kind of pointless for the government to get involved.
Not to mention entirely ignorant of the very notion of our government being ostensibly "by the people, of the people, for the people" - i.e. the government itself being a representation of society. So if society itself is broadly rejecting some viewpoint on its own, then it's kind of pointless for the government to get involved.
Everything is a political view these days.
It doesn't matter what it is. It's not the job of the people who assemble my phone to decide the content on the device. Their job is to shut up and move the bits through the pipes, not to have political opinions.
People adopted app stores for security and stability- not political content moderation. The fact that they've decided to reinvent themselves as editorialists is as outrageous as if my mailman decided to tear out pages from my magazine subscriptions, if my cable company decided to black out specific television shows, or if the carmaker decided to censor radio stations it didn't like.
People adopted app stores for security and stability- not political content moderation. The fact that they've decided to reinvent themselves as editorialists is as outrageous as if my mailman decided to tear out pages from my magazine subscriptions, if my cable company decided to black out specific television shows, or if the carmaker decided to censor radio stations it didn't like.
Do you insist that a news channel or entertainment channel pickup every news item or program that is pitched to them? Do you expect the magazine to carry every article written and sent to them?
I think the way the world is today is that the smart phone as a product is like this magazine or tv channel and the mobile network is the underlying common neutral infra. And the apps are like the news items or articles or serial programs in this analogy.
I think the way the world is today is that the smart phone as a product is like this magazine or tv channel and the mobile network is the underlying common neutral infra. And the apps are like the news items or articles or serial programs in this analogy.
> Sure, but what oppressive law is at work here?
Duopoly: We are private company! Lawless oppression second to none! All other company have inferior oppression! Stop discussion of Tienanmen! Cancel political opponents!
Purism: Hey, you there, customers, maybe that lot is headed down a road you don't want to travel and you should come over here.
Q: What law is at work in the identified problem?
A: What law is at work in the proposed solution?
Duopoly: We are private company! Lawless oppression second to none! All other company have inferior oppression! Stop discussion of Tienanmen! Cancel political opponents!
Purism: Hey, you there, customers, maybe that lot is headed down a road you don't want to travel and you should come over here.
Q: What law is at work in the identified problem?
A: What law is at work in the proposed solution?
Yeah, but no one is making a new oppressive law. Parler violated their ToS and Google, Apples, Amazon are within their rights to do this. If a court finds otherwise (and see a contractual breach) and they have to backtrack we will know the system worked as intended.
If Parler violates the ToS then Twitter surely does as well. But, since [0]Twitter pays Amazon an obscene amount of money they are immune. Facebook is in a similar position where they've been [1]enjoying the rewards of 'selective non-enforcement' for a very long time now.
I probably disagree with just about everything ever said on Parler but it's difficult not to point out this absolutely reeks.
[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/twitter-w...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-a-rocket-ship-f...
EDIT - I can't tell if the downvotes are people mistakenly believing I'm defending Parler or because they believe that $Big_Tech is free of blame.
I probably disagree with just about everything ever said on Parler but it's difficult not to point out this absolutely reeks.
[0]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/twitter-w...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-a-rocket-ship-f...
EDIT - I can't tell if the downvotes are people mistakenly believing I'm defending Parler or because they believe that $Big_Tech is free of blame.
At least as it relates to speech in Western liberal democracies, this is alleging there is a slippery slope (and we're not already on it) and there are no mechanisms that exist or could be introduced to increase the friction on that slope. It's a feel-good platitude of a quote that's basically an appeal to emotion without evidence.
Slippery slope arguments, while sometimes valid, usually require more leg work to persuade than a vague sentiment.
Slippery slope arguments, while sometimes valid, usually require more leg work to persuade than a vague sentiment.
Well if someone dead said it and it was important enough to put quotes around, it must be true!
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
~ Karl Popper
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
~ Karl Popper
> Well if someone dead said it and it was important enough to put quotes around, it must be true!
Straw man. It's true because it's true, not because of who said it.
> "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
"This statement is false." "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Karl Popper was wrong, and here's why.
Speech and actions are different. Society can tolerate any kind of speech, because they're words. They don't cause direct harm. And the indirect harm, i.e. violence or firing people or refusing to serve them as a result of their race or religion, can be prohibited, while still allowing the speech.
Straw man. It's true because it's true, not because of who said it.
> "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
"This statement is false." "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Karl Popper was wrong, and here's why.
Speech and actions are different. Society can tolerate any kind of speech, because they're words. They don't cause direct harm. And the indirect harm, i.e. violence or firing people or refusing to serve them as a result of their race or religion, can be prohibited, while still allowing the speech.
>Speech and actions are different. Society can tolerate any kind of speech, because they're words.
This is false; there is no metaphysical difference between "speech" and "action"; I'd check out the work of Fred Schauer or more recently Susan Brison on this point. There are many examples (see citation) of speech having the ability to directly harm without any other action, from psychological harms to contextual harms. Indeed, in many segregationist policies, it wasn't the segregation that made it ugly, it was the effects of the contents of the law which provided denigration through authority.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is empirically untenable[0], and like actions, speech can cause negative involuntary reactions. It also seems unfair to place the burden of "hardening" one's ability to feel this pain on the people whom the words are targeted at.
[0] http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...
This is false; there is no metaphysical difference between "speech" and "action"; I'd check out the work of Fred Schauer or more recently Susan Brison on this point. There are many examples (see citation) of speech having the ability to directly harm without any other action, from psychological harms to contextual harms. Indeed, in many segregationist policies, it wasn't the segregation that made it ugly, it was the effects of the contents of the law which provided denigration through authority.
"Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" is empirically untenable[0], and like actions, speech can cause negative involuntary reactions. It also seems unfair to place the burden of "hardening" one's ability to feel this pain on the people whom the words are targeted at.
[0] http://susanbrison.com/files/B.16.-speech_harm_and_the_mindb...
Popper wasn't wrong, but people today cite him out of context. His words weren't meant as a support of vaporizing people for wrongthink. (To borrow expressions from his contemporary, George Orwell).
Popper lived in a time when many far left or far right parties had well organized, sometimes massive militant wings ready to bash skulls of their opponents (think SA). He believed in restricting speech when the intolerant were on a clear path to triumph by violence, not by engaging in an argument.
But AS A LAST RESORT and in limited scope only. This is a part of Popper's philosophy of liberalism. Violence is used as a last resort only.
When you look at the case of Parler, if it was really used to coordinate the attack on the Capitol, and the digital giants decided to take it offline for that afternoon and in the proximity of the rally only (say, 100 km radius), or in a similar restricted way, it could definitely be argued that they used force as a last resort against the possibility of democracy losing control in a certain place and time.
But eternal worldwide permaban of an entire platform clearly exceeds the "last resort" test. It does not even try to be narrowly tailored to the threat, even though the giants have all the ability to do so. It is a blanket, global act meant to constrain speech of millions for actions of hundreds.
Now we can debate whether the giants should have the right to do so or not, but I think that regardless of this question, by swinging the hammer so heavily and so wide they proved that they aren't really fans of Popper-like liberalism at all. Whatever they did isn't covered by Popper's argument against intolerance as a whole.
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...
Popper lived in a time when many far left or far right parties had well organized, sometimes massive militant wings ready to bash skulls of their opponents (think SA). He believed in restricting speech when the intolerant were on a clear path to triumph by violence, not by engaging in an argument.
But AS A LAST RESORT and in limited scope only. This is a part of Popper's philosophy of liberalism. Violence is used as a last resort only.
When you look at the case of Parler, if it was really used to coordinate the attack on the Capitol, and the digital giants decided to take it offline for that afternoon and in the proximity of the rally only (say, 100 km radius), or in a similar restricted way, it could definitely be argued that they used force as a last resort against the possibility of democracy losing control in a certain place and time.
But eternal worldwide permaban of an entire platform clearly exceeds the "last resort" test. It does not even try to be narrowly tailored to the threat, even though the giants have all the ability to do so. It is a blanket, global act meant to constrain speech of millions for actions of hundreds.
Now we can debate whether the giants should have the right to do so or not, but I think that regardless of this question, by swinging the hammer so heavily and so wide they proved that they aren't really fans of Popper-like liberalism at all. Whatever they did isn't covered by Popper's argument against intolerance as a whole.
https://fee.org/articles/why-the-paradox-of-tolerance-is-no-...
"Speech and actions are different. Society can tolerate any kind of speech, because they're words."
This position is rejected by many today on the basis of mental health concerns. For example, LBGT activists claim that anti-LGBT speech is inherently harmful because it leads to higher suicide rates and higher incidence of depression among their community.
This position is rejected by many today on the basis of mental health concerns. For example, LBGT activists claim that anti-LGBT speech is inherently harmful because it leads to higher suicide rates and higher incidence of depression among their community.
[deleted]
Many users wanted a free (as in freedom) platform and Parler provided it.
Parler wasn't intolerant. Parler wasn't advocating for Twitter to be taken offline.
Based on his heart tweet, Jack sure was happy when Parler was removed from the App Store. Jack is the intolerant one.
Parler wasn't intolerant. Parler wasn't advocating for Twitter to be taken offline.
Based on his heart tweet, Jack sure was happy when Parler was removed from the App Store. Jack is the intolerant one.
No, Parler wasn't a platform for "freedom". It was a platform for right wing ideologues and frequently banned left wing content but had trouble cleaning up death threats.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-pr...
Twitter can't clean up that garbage either and is also used by extremists. However, Twitter has not been deplatformed.
I don’t think the right wing platform that was kicking up dangerous conspiracy theories which was funded by the same people as Cambridge Analytica was a “free speech platform”. It surely marketed itself as that though.
Refusing to host Nazis isn't "oppressive".
Oppressing Nazis is still oppressive, nazis are people too. And I say this as someone whose Jewish father survived the Holocaust. I am all for Twitter/FB bans, trumpism should be combated in public discourse, but the current bans on Parler by infrastructure are a kind of slippery slope I am not comfortable with. To copy a quote from above:
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -H. L. Mencken
The nazis did some things during world war 2 that perhaps lost them the label “human.” I don’t have the emotional vigour this morning to make a list of the atrocities but one that doesn’t get mentioned often was a literal war of extermination against the “sub-human” Slavic peoples. Dan Carlin did a disturbing series on the war in the east.
The question is what sort of nazis these people are or wish to be. Are they passive but ignorant supporters, or do they want to make an army to kill tens of millions based on their race? The term is too broad
The question is what sort of nazis these people are or wish to be. Are they passive but ignorant supporters, or do they want to make an army to kill tens of millions based on their race? The term is too broad
I understand the historical significance. I was born to a Jewish father and a Russian mother in Belarus, a country that was the first ussr republic to be invaded and had more than 25% of its population die (as you mentioned, many of them were Slavic). I’ve been on trips to many villages that were exterminated and burned down for helping the partisan. The wounds of that war run deep and the horrors are well remembered and taught to the new generations.
On my dads side most of his family was killed by the nazis and while he was only 4 when the war started he remembers Minsk burning and the horrors that followed, especially towards the end as he was older. My paternal grandfather (also Jewish), fought in wwii starting from day 3 of the invasion of ussr all the way until nazis got pushed out of Poland (and a miracle of survival since most of red army in Belarus was wiped out quickly).
As you can imagine, I am no friend of the Nazis.
At the same time I’m now a US citizen, and one thing I internalized about my adopted homeland is that America is this weird place where everyone can have a voice. It doesn’t mean we need to amplify all voices, such as nazi voices, but I do think that it is very important to allow meaningful expression of all sides, even when it is despicable and uncomfortable.
Only when nothing is taboo can people truly speak their mind and change narrative. When things are not hidden in subcontext but rather spoken out openly.
I do not mourn loss of nazi voices, but I am worried about it being ok to silence anyone. Especially at infrastructure/carrier level. I believe that if one doesn’t like platform rules they should move/make their own, but if the very infra of internet prevents you, that’s really bad. You can’t say “don’t like our rules then make your own internet.” This goes beyond simply not amplifying the voices (such as the justified Twitter/fb bans), and into total suppression.
On my dads side most of his family was killed by the nazis and while he was only 4 when the war started he remembers Minsk burning and the horrors that followed, especially towards the end as he was older. My paternal grandfather (also Jewish), fought in wwii starting from day 3 of the invasion of ussr all the way until nazis got pushed out of Poland (and a miracle of survival since most of red army in Belarus was wiped out quickly).
As you can imagine, I am no friend of the Nazis.
At the same time I’m now a US citizen, and one thing I internalized about my adopted homeland is that America is this weird place where everyone can have a voice. It doesn’t mean we need to amplify all voices, such as nazi voices, but I do think that it is very important to allow meaningful expression of all sides, even when it is despicable and uncomfortable.
Only when nothing is taboo can people truly speak their mind and change narrative. When things are not hidden in subcontext but rather spoken out openly.
I do not mourn loss of nazi voices, but I am worried about it being ok to silence anyone. Especially at infrastructure/carrier level. I believe that if one doesn’t like platform rules they should move/make their own, but if the very infra of internet prevents you, that’s really bad. You can’t say “don’t like our rules then make your own internet.” This goes beyond simply not amplifying the voices (such as the justified Twitter/fb bans), and into total suppression.
> Oppressing Nazis is still oppressive, nazis are people too.
But choosing not to associate with Nazis isn't oppressing them.
But choosing not to associate with Nazis isn't oppressing them.
And that’s why I think the Twitter/fb bans are ok. But common infra and monopolistic stores are not. Store, esp apple store, is more of a utility. There are no alternatives.
> There are no alternatives.
The alternative is to not use iOS-based devices, which seems like a pretty good idea all around from a transparency avenue (and like I've said before on this site, like the broken record I am: transparency is a dependency of trust). That's exactly Librem's argument, and it's a compelling one: you have no control over the device or visibility into the software running on it, so how can you trust it to be operating for your benefit instead of that of some third party?
Even Android devices typically allow sideloading, and quite a few even support custom ROMs. That is: even devices with software maintained by a literal ad company are more transparent - and therefore more trustworthy, even if only marginally - than any iPhone or iPad.
The alternative is to not use iOS-based devices, which seems like a pretty good idea all around from a transparency avenue (and like I've said before on this site, like the broken record I am: transparency is a dependency of trust). That's exactly Librem's argument, and it's a compelling one: you have no control over the device or visibility into the software running on it, so how can you trust it to be operating for your benefit instead of that of some third party?
Even Android devices typically allow sideloading, and quite a few even support custom ROMs. That is: even devices with software maintained by a literal ad company are more transparent - and therefore more trustworthy, even if only marginally - than any iPhone or iPad.
But your argument isn't really meaningful to majority of phone users -- they are not sophisticated enough to do side loadings or installing custom ROMs or using poorly supported stacks. What they do need is reliable phone that does things that they need them to do, and there is no real alternative for this case. It's why Linux desktop is still not a real alternative to Windows desktop (and I say this as someone who runs linux at home and professionally writes code that runs on linux servers).
Was there any court order proving they were Nazis?
It's a bit of a reputation risk, yes. We should be glad some people are willing to take it. "Democracy dies in darkness" or something.
The insurrection directly was trying to kill our democracy by overriding a vote, the core guarantee of our democracy.
But in general, I think "buy our product if you want to try to overthrow democracy" is just in general, a bad business strategy.
But in general, I think "buy our product if you want to try to overthrow democracy" is just in general, a bad business strategy.
I'm not looking to change your political beliefs, but if you assign an infinite value ("killing our democracy!" comes close) to one problem you'll be unable to weigh the coming dilemmas. Not "properly weigh", weigh at all.
I'm well aware that the MAGA thing was well beyond a vandalizing mob. But that wasn't an organized coup either.
If you let this become an "existential risk" that overrides all other concerns, you'll find yourself agreeing to some things a previous iteration of yourself would find unpalatable. Worse yet, you may come to regret it in 10 or 20 years.
I'm well aware that the MAGA thing was well beyond a vandalizing mob. But that wasn't an organized coup either.
If you let this become an "existential risk" that overrides all other concerns, you'll find yourself agreeing to some things a previous iteration of yourself would find unpalatable. Worse yet, you may come to regret it in 10 or 20 years.
> But that wasn't an organized coup either.
What are your requirements for an "organized coup?" It seems to me that Parler hosted a bunch of discussion (one might call "organization") about how exactly to storm the capitol (and also refused to remove that discussion when Google/Apple/Amazon asked them to).
What are your requirements for an "organized coup?" It seems to me that Parler hosted a bunch of discussion (one might call "organization") about how exactly to storm the capitol (and also refused to remove that discussion when Google/Apple/Amazon asked them to).
A coup assumes the capacity to take over. What, they’re going to delay the rite of electoral college certification and one month later the military, CIA, etc is answering to Trump? What do we know about involvement of actual officials beyond Trumpworld core? Was the FCC in on the insurrection?
Usually a coup d’etat interrupts TV broadcasts immediately. Was there a plan at all?
Edit: the insurrection didn’t even have snipers to try and kill retreating congressbeings. I don’t think it even qualifies as a terrorist act. The gravity of the situation (an election that’s really within a statistical margin of error - if the goal was to ascertain the preferences of a plurality) makes it more than mere vandalism, but emotions are running way too high here.
The political climate may make the “terrorism” label stick. But there was nothing to it remotely resembling a coup.
Usually a coup d’etat interrupts TV broadcasts immediately. Was there a plan at all?
Edit: the insurrection didn’t even have snipers to try and kill retreating congressbeings. I don’t think it even qualifies as a terrorist act. The gravity of the situation (an election that’s really within a statistical margin of error - if the goal was to ascertain the preferences of a plurality) makes it more than mere vandalism, but emotions are running way too high here.
The political climate may make the “terrorism” label stick. But there was nothing to it remotely resembling a coup.
Your argument is basically: it wasn't a coup because it wasn't as sophisticated as many coups, or it didn't resemble many coups in the past.
On the other hand, intent is usually a factor in determining a crime. If someone attempts to murder another person, they still commit the crime of attempted murder, regardless whether the murder was actually successful. So I'm not really convinced by the argument: "it wasn't a coup because it wasn't successful/sophisticated."
Wikipedia defines a coup as
> [The] removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[1] A coup attempt may refer to a coup in the works or an unsuccessful coup.[1]."
The storm on the capitol fits Wikipedia's definition of an attempted coup:
1. It was an (admittedly incompetent) attempt at removing the existing government from power. (Capitol stormers wanted to force Pence to "declare" Trump as president, as well as capture or kill senators and representatives.)
2. The capitol storm was violent. Five people died, including a police officer.
3. The capitol storm was illegal and unconstitutional. Many stormers have been charged with crimes by the federal government.
4. The stormers wanted to seize power on behalf of the far-right/MAGA political faction.
It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's definition has not changed since the Jan. 6th events [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
On the other hand, intent is usually a factor in determining a crime. If someone attempts to murder another person, they still commit the crime of attempted murder, regardless whether the murder was actually successful. So I'm not really convinced by the argument: "it wasn't a coup because it wasn't successful/sophisticated."
Wikipedia defines a coup as
> [The] removal of an existing government from power, usually through violent means. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, the military, or a dictator. Many scholars consider a coup d'état successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days.[1] A coup attempt may refer to a coup in the works or an unsuccessful coup.[1]."
The storm on the capitol fits Wikipedia's definition of an attempted coup:
1. It was an (admittedly incompetent) attempt at removing the existing government from power. (Capitol stormers wanted to force Pence to "declare" Trump as president, as well as capture or kill senators and representatives.)
2. The capitol storm was violent. Five people died, including a police officer.
3. The capitol storm was illegal and unconstitutional. Many stormers have been charged with crimes by the federal government.
4. The stormers wanted to seize power on behalf of the far-right/MAGA political faction.
It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's definition has not changed since the Jan. 6th events [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Again, you don't seize power by attacking a particular meeting.
If Pence had somehow used ritual features of the rulebook and declared the electoral college invalid, then this would have been a coup (or "self-coup") by the Republican Party. Pence would only have done this if (besides an inclination to "kill democracy") he had secured the allegiance of a number of institutions and set in place the actual conditions for a functioning Trump dictatorship.
Coups are frequently preceded by mass demonstrations clamoring for something radical to be done. But these are not "the seizure of power by a political faction"; they're (1) a symptom of the generalized social dysfunction under which a coup is even thinkable and (2) a legitimizing excuse that new rulers-to-be can invoke to minimize general opposition to their claim to power. The seizure of power takes place elsewhere. Sometimes this is even gradual -- in preparation for a coup, loyalists are put in charge of major institutions, particularly security ones: National Guard, branches of the military, intelligence agencies and so on.
What you had was a protest. An ugly one too; not all protests are "mostly nonviolent".
If Pence had somehow used ritual features of the rulebook and declared the electoral college invalid, then this would have been a coup (or "self-coup") by the Republican Party. Pence would only have done this if (besides an inclination to "kill democracy") he had secured the allegiance of a number of institutions and set in place the actual conditions for a functioning Trump dictatorship.
Coups are frequently preceded by mass demonstrations clamoring for something radical to be done. But these are not "the seizure of power by a political faction"; they're (1) a symptom of the generalized social dysfunction under which a coup is even thinkable and (2) a legitimizing excuse that new rulers-to-be can invoke to minimize general opposition to their claim to power. The seizure of power takes place elsewhere. Sometimes this is even gradual -- in preparation for a coup, loyalists are put in charge of major institutions, particularly security ones: National Guard, branches of the military, intelligence agencies and so on.
What you had was a protest. An ugly one too; not all protests are "mostly nonviolent".
> Again, you don't seize power by attacking a particular meeting.
Agreed, but that's not my claim. My claim is: these people thought that they could seize power by attacking this particular meaning (however absurd that belief might be). This is documented by posts stating their intent on social media, as well as their actions within the capitol. They also acted on their belief and committed a criminal act. So morally speaking, they had the necessary mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of the crime of an attempted coup.
I completely agree with your statement that this attempted coup was inept and therefore ineffective. I also agree that attempt did not share the characteristics of a historically effective coup. However, I disagree with your contention that a skilled implementation of a coup is necessary for an "attempted coup." Skill in an act is sufficient, but not necessary for an "attempt" of the act.
Agreed, but that's not my claim. My claim is: these people thought that they could seize power by attacking this particular meaning (however absurd that belief might be). This is documented by posts stating their intent on social media, as well as their actions within the capitol. They also acted on their belief and committed a criminal act. So morally speaking, they had the necessary mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of the crime of an attempted coup.
I completely agree with your statement that this attempted coup was inept and therefore ineffective. I also agree that attempt did not share the characteristics of a historically effective coup. However, I disagree with your contention that a skilled implementation of a coup is necessary for an "attempted coup." Skill in an act is sufficient, but not necessary for an "attempt" of the act.
Would you prefer "mass assassination attempt"? That's not much better. There were two goals:
1. Prevent the certification of the election for a few weeks, allowing Trump to be voted into power by the house delegations.
2. Murder a bunch of elected officials.
1. Prevent the certification of the election for a few weeks, allowing Trump to be voted into power by the house delegations.
2. Murder a bunch of elected officials.
And the insurrection was planned more on FB than Parler. The FB app is still in the app stores.
(As has been said many times already...)
FB tries to moderate the violent comments, Parler did not.
FB tries to moderate the violent comments, Parler did not.
FB profited off the violence and only started moderating once the situation became unsustainable from a PR point of view. The reason this insurrection happened is because people were fed divisive, outrageous and false garbage for years for "engagement"'s sake.
Don't get me wrong, FB isn't free of blame.
But its clear the reason they're treated different is because Parler took a black and white stance and FB is a value judgement and much harder to criticize.
But its clear the reason they're treated different is because Parler took a black and white stance and FB is a value judgement and much harder to criticize.
Both Facebook and Parler ultimately have the same goals - make money out of people while bearing none of the consequences.
Parler is just very explicit about this intention, where as Facebook wants you to believe something different but actually only behaves differently as little as needs to maintain the illusion.
In this case, I respect Parler slightly more because at least they're upfront about it. Both are scum and both should go, but at least one is honest about their intentions.
Parler also happens to cater to a common enemy with no political ties or PR appeal, where as Facebook gives you the illusion of being the good guy, all while making money off the same people Parler wants to cater to.
Parler is just very explicit about this intention, where as Facebook wants you to believe something different but actually only behaves differently as little as needs to maintain the illusion.
In this case, I respect Parler slightly more because at least they're upfront about it. Both are scum and both should go, but at least one is honest about their intentions.
Parler also happens to cater to a common enemy with no political ties or PR appeal, where as Facebook gives you the illusion of being the good guy, all while making money off the same people Parler wants to cater to.
I have seen no convincing evidence that Facebook and Twitter make good faith efforts to remove comments that incite violence, according to the letter of the law.
To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.
To me, it looks like they selectively moderate the views that give them bad press (ISIS) and enjoy the massive engagement that comes from the conflict.
FB is the reason why this event happened. People went there to talk with friends & family but were instead fed an endless stream of divisive, outrageous and false garbage to generate "engagement" for years. No surprise some of them went nuts.
For democracy to work, the vote must be considered valid by all party. One party think the vote is not valid thus of course its expected for them to try to fight it.
Yes, hence observers and such. But even then, there will always be people for who no amount of oversight will satisfy them that the votes were all legally submitted. They then go and sue, and when that fails they will still claim that their side won.
For democracy to work it would be nice if people were using facts rather than fiction to base their worldview on. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.
For democracy to work it would be nice if people were using facts rather than fiction to base their worldview on. Unfortunately, that's no longer the case.
According to the CEO of Parler, banks and payment vendors, law firms, text and mail services also cancelled on them. This is why Parler also motivates discussion of alternative currency. This is an expression of freedom of association by multiple parties. Google didn't need to ask Parler's lawyers or bank to quit them.
Parler became a hot potato, and whoever is the last one holding it receives a full-court press from all sides.
Parler became a hot potato, and whoever is the last one holding it receives a full-court press from all sides.
I really like the idea of running an OS like PureOS or other open source, Linux OSes on my phone. In practice though, there are always apps that I need in modern life that only exist for iOS or Android. The carsharing app I use, a few of my banks, and some apps I need for work, etc, all only exist on Android. Is there any solution for running an Android VM inside a Linux phone in order to use these apps that I need that aren't available for Linux?
Google and Apple can simply make software disappear from their app stores, this is not news. Some people have quickly forgotten the Basecamp / Hey scandal just a few months before the Parler shutdown.
Now that governments are trying to catch up with the latest happenings, they might be able to stop Big Tech to achieve ''sovereignty''. But, as more people move towards free software, the governments in lust of power would like to restrict the freedom of the people in dealings with software. Also, oppressive goverments may use ''free'' software in oppression. How can we take away their ''freedom'' in such circumstances? (Can we? I don't think that is possible.)
> go to any website you'd like. Why is the lack of an app on the App Store or Play such a major hindrance?
have you ever been grateful you received a notification on your phone when a message arrived that was of great interest to you? Does your web browser do that, or do your apps do that?
you are smarter than the obtuse you are pretending to be to make your argument.
have you ever been grateful you received a notification on your phone when a message arrived that was of great interest to you? Does your web browser do that, or do your apps do that?
you are smarter than the obtuse you are pretending to be to make your argument.
>Does your web browser do that, or do your apps do that?
On Android, both web apps and native apps do that. iOS only allows Safari that conveniently does not implement web push notifications, thus keeping a very wide spectrum of apps away from the open web and inside their app garden.
On Android, both web apps and native apps do that. iOS only allows Safari that conveniently does not implement web push notifications, thus keeping a very wide spectrum of apps away from the open web and inside their app garden.
Parler is back up (as a website) and could even host a APK for Android. In addition, there are multiple Android stores as alternatives to the Play Store.
For years people have griped over this "fragmentation".
Google, Apple, and others are much too powerful. I cannot deny that. Something really needs done. However, they made the right move. It's not "censorship", and yes you do have options if you're the type that wants garbage like Parler.
For years people have griped over this "fragmentation".
Google, Apple, and others are much too powerful. I cannot deny that. Something really needs done. However, they made the right move. It's not "censorship", and yes you do have options if you're the type that wants garbage like Parler.
>If Google bans an app, all a user has to do is follow a list of complicated (and often sketchy) procedures, sometimes involving disabling protections or installing sketchy software on another computer
You what? Download an .apk from anywhere (browser, email, usb, whatever) and click on it. Android will literally guide you directly to the "unknown sources" toggle. Then install your apk.
You what? Download an .apk from anywhere (browser, email, usb, whatever) and click on it. Android will literally guide you directly to the "unknown sources" toggle. Then install your apk.
Tell that to your grandma.
Google and Apple can simply make software disappear.
Software that gives access to child pornography.
Software to buy and sell black-market drugs.
Software that lets people organize terrorism and sedition.
There's a point where free speech crosses the "clear and present danger" threshold.
I consider this a feature, not a bug.
There's a point where free speech crosses the "clear and present danger" threshold.
I consider this a feature, not a bug.
Sure, but the question is: who gets to decide where that line is drawn when the answer isn't so clear? Are we happy delegating that decision to a couple of corporations?
No, open a browser and you can go to http://thedonald.win and you'll be free to say anything there, so long as it fits their narrative - otherwise they will ban/block you; I hope the irony isn't lost on people that they want to be able to "censor"/block people, but don't want others to be able to block them.
What's the alternative - the government which a large portion of our country wants to see less of? Not to mention if it were the government's responsibility that any new president can just strip the budget making it ineffective.
I think that's an argument against Google and Apple being a duopoly in the smartphone market, not an argument that companies shouldn't be able to make policies about what is and isn't allowed on their app store.
So if users could more easily sideload apps or if there were more app stores, then Apple and Google wouldn't be the sole arbiters of what apps can be on people's phones.
So if users could more easily sideload apps or if there were more app stores, then Apple and Google wouldn't be the sole arbiters of what apps can be on people's phones.
Are there any due process?
Is the power checked and balanced?
Does anyone here have their Librem 5 smartphone?
There are plenty of people on Purism forums: https://forums.puri.sm/search?q=%5BMyL5%5D.
As had been said prior, there is an examination to be made around the influence Google & Apple have in the software space.
However there is also the obligatory xkcd:https://xkcd.com/1357/
However there is also the obligatory xkcd:https://xkcd.com/1357/
[deleted]
"Apps get removed from these app stores all the time, but more than almost any past move by these companies, this one has brought the power Big Tech companies wield over everyone’s lives to the minds of every day people."
Everyday Nazis, more like.
Everyday Nazis, more like.
I absolutely despise the kind of content you'd find on parler, but I am still deeply uncomfortable with Amazon and Google's influence over our lives. You can hold two opposing thoughts in your head at the same time.
Same here. I despise Parler and the kind of people that associate with it, but I'm also not happy with the power over our lives that big tech companies possess these days. Seeing the Librem 5 being recommended by random people in context of Parler makes me feel uneasy, but I guess I just have to deal with the fact that not everything is black and white and that good things (like FLOSS, encryption, autonomy) will also be used to do bad.
(I work for Purism on a technical position)
(I work for Purism on a technical position)
Yeah, that post made me sad. Was enthusiastic about purism. Not interested in it anymore.
Much more troubling is that Telegram proactively removed right wing groups from their service, because those 2 companies removed Parler
Encryption can be used for bad things too I hope they ban it.
Politicians do bad things, too.
This is totally off-topic, but I really feel like slapping the designer of the font with a tuna or something. Is it intentionally designed to be provocative? Apparently, the font is called Libre Baskerville, but when I viewed it on Google Fonts it didn't have that annoying X-height.
> The solution is to choose hardware and software from companies that value your freedom
This can already be done with Android. Good for them for making another alternative, but they're really overstating their case here.
This can already be done with Android. Good for them for making another alternative, but they're really overstating their case here.
Technically Google can remove sideloaded apps from your Android too. Nearly every Android in existence gives Google remote root access to everything on the device.
> Nearly every Android in existence gives Google remote root access to everything on the device.
That's the point. You're choosing a phone, not among all Android phones at random (or worse, all smartphones at random, which by virtue of including iOS worsens your odds).
Even Android phones made by Google are usable with a DNS block on google.com (as long as you manually sideload OS updates), removing Google's remote root.
That's the point. You're choosing a phone, not among all Android phones at random (or worse, all smartphones at random, which by virtue of including iOS worsens your odds).
Even Android phones made by Google are usable with a DNS block on google.com (as long as you manually sideload OS updates), removing Google's remote root.
TFA addresses that point explicitly where they say Google lags a couple of generations behind Apple in lockdown features, and newer defaults are pointing in the direction of further restricting sideloading.
> they say Google lags a couple of generations behind Apple in lockdown features,
Android is already caught up with iOS in lockdown features and in some ways already surpassed. This is a very strange argument for PureOS, which requires apps to request permissions at install time (like earlier versions of Android), and many apps in Flathub just ask for all permissions. I hope PureOS improves this situation because it will also make my desktop better in addition to providing more mobile choices, but to claim they are better than Android already at this simply has no basis in reality.
> newer defaults are pointing in the direction of further restricting sideloading.
Google itself has said that sideloading will become better in upcoming versions of Android. This is something that I am looking forward to because I develop apps for my own devices that I want to manage the deployment of myself without being restricted to the basic deployment capabilities of the Play Store. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
Android is already caught up with iOS in lockdown features and in some ways already surpassed. This is a very strange argument for PureOS, which requires apps to request permissions at install time (like earlier versions of Android), and many apps in Flathub just ask for all permissions. I hope PureOS improves this situation because it will also make my desktop better in addition to providing more mobile choices, but to claim they are better than Android already at this simply has no basis in reality.
> newer defaults are pointing in the direction of further restricting sideloading.
Google itself has said that sideloading will become better in upcoming versions of Android. This is something that I am looking forward to because I develop apps for my own devices that I want to manage the deployment of myself without being restricted to the basic deployment capabilities of the Play Store. https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2020/09/listening-...
But it is NOT widely done.
Why?
Perhaps only a few people value this? Or perhaps it hasn't yet been marketed properly?
Why?
Perhaps only a few people value this? Or perhaps it hasn't yet been marketed properly?
People who do value it use it that way (and this is the only widely available platform that allows them to do so today). You'll see many such users on this very forum, but as you observed, there aren't that many in total. This says something unfortunate about the size of Purism's addressable market but not much about Android itself.
Also, not totally related this this article, but I also don't understand why Parler didn't have a backup DR plan. All of the major cloud platforms have outages. What is stopping them from renting a few racks, or cages of racks, in a datacenter with multiple Tier1 peers? Sounds like they didn't plan very well honestly.