17
Parzi
18d

An entire platform was removed from Google Play, and may be removed from other markets too, not for something they did, but because of the POLITICAL ALIGNMENT OF A MAJORITY OF ITS USERS.

"the users are evil" you're right, let's ban Tor, Snapchat, Whatsapp, Twitter, Facebook, etc. because they've got a metric fuckton of "evil users" too. Oh. Wait. No, that's not how that works, is it?

https://usatoday.com/story/tech/...

Comments
  • 7
    Heh, people finally starting to notice the censorship is real. The alt media has been warning about this for what 2 weeks and in some cases months. Wake up people.
  • 7
    > Conservative getting angry at the result of free markets.

    If you want true free speech, go on IRC or something, what else are you expecting from the GAFAs. Or you could push to nationalize / decentralize corporations - but that's communism

    What you're really mad at is monopoly. But again, free market is supposed to break down monopolies without state intervention so I really don't get what you're complaining about :D
  • 3
    @ostream we had a free market and like 6 people controlled the fucking country to the point of influencing an election... and no, not really, as even the shit options are considering doing the same shit too. Hell, Parler can't even be found on fucking APTOIDE anymore. (i'm also not a conservative, i'm somewhere smack-dab in the center of the political map, but it's very much not oky to punish the devs of a platform for the actions of its users. Section 230 and all that.)
  • 3
    @ostream this is the most retarded argument I have ever heard. Pure hypocrisy, pure gotcha attempt.
  • 2
    @Parzi aw, are you saying competition doesn't always work?
  • 5
    @Parzi hey if my platform was used by pedos and nazis I'd expect backslash as well.
  • 1
    Nobody whined when they cracked down on AnTIFa's account. You can't constantly bitch about how big government bad then expect private companies to be held to the same standard as governments. I mean you can and do, but you look pathetic.
  • 1
    @ostream being an ass on the internet doesn't either.

    Anyways, competition, WHEN UNREGULATED, can cause stagnation when a single company sits on success and does nothing but grow due to loyal... fans... wait, that's just Apple. Bad example Let's see... OH! The competition will sometimes buy out all other competition if it manages to pull ahead of the rest far eno- FUCK IT'S STANDARD OIL

    it's almost like a business can become too big to be able to have competition, especially with the current lax law scheme we employ OR in a totally-free market. Maybe, with a big enough think, we can come up with a better solution?
  • 1
    @Parzi hey I would have been totally fine having a polite conversation with people and their different view if some little bitch here didn't call me retarded because he couldn't find anything else to answer
  • 1
    @ostream you were antagonistic in your first reply, then condescending in your reply to my comment on what you said. You made yourself out as a massive asshole before he said anything.
  • 1
    @Parzi Ohhhh I'm very sorry to be antagonistic. I guess I deserved to be insulted then? How dare I disagree with people? I'm mortified. \s
  • 1
    @ostream You can disagree. The issue is, you're being a dick about it. Generally, a statement of disagreement along with why is going to go better than your responses have.
  • 1
    Hey maybe I'll get banned from here for being too antagonistic. That'd be ironic.
  • 2
    @Parzi pointing out hypocrisy isn't being a dick, what do you want me to say? If you accept the free market dogma, then this sort of things will happen.
  • 3
    @ostream i didn't say you "pointing out hypocrisy" was you being a dick.
  • 1
    @Parzi yes that's what happens when one fuckheaded little asshole call me retarded. Actions have reactions.
  • 0
    But yeah I guess I'd be the bigger person deleting this. Sorry somebody highjacked your threat with his pathetic remarks.
  • 1
  • 0
    Yeah see that shit? No substance, no rebuttal, just judgement. Then he'll bitch because he gets insulted.
  • 0
    I seriously love it lmao. A platform get banned for not moderating shit, that's an outrage. Somebody misbehave on your threat and suddenly moderation gets important? lol
  • 8
    The chinafication of the West is breathtaking - all while they deny it's happening because it's not the state, but big tech companies taking over control.
  • 0
    Jeez I wonder if it's linked with the west buying china's shit with Chinese money for a decade.
  • 3
    @ostream if you respond to insults with insults, you're not any better than them
  • 3
    Hear me out, it’s hard to make money if the country’s government is overthrown. I’d say that line of removing apps exists for any apps comprised of a majority of users of any political leaning, but only one segment is crossing that line right now.
  • 3
    This isn't simply about the political alignment of the users, it's about the users *actions* and how it's not moderated. Being a cunt isn't a political alignment. What's wrong with private companies wanting to make sure content is moderated? Aren't these people the same people that are literally advocating for a free market and unregulated companies, which allows them to do this?
  • 1
    @bakk As far as I remember, the entire purpose of Parler was "Twitter but not a cesspool because it's heavily censored by staff?"
  • 7
    📌 so much drama in one post... 👀
  • 2
    @Demolishun From the Directors to the engineers of these big tech companies are all the same. People pretending to make "the world a better place". But in reality are rotten and only contribute to make the world a worst place. Pretty sad if you ask me.
  • 2
    @aviophile "sissy"? Are you using a gay slur to imply that @ostream is gay?

    Poor form, my friend.
  • 2
    I hope this has the side effect of the world becoming less reliant on these companies and more reliant on privacy-focused libre tech
  • 2
    @junon sissy as in girly. In my opinion: men > gays > women

    Why do I hear boss music?
  • 3
    @aviophile Uh, what? Elaborate?
  • 4
    @aviophile You have a very outdated and frankly sad view of the world, my friend. Because I am gay, am I less of a man?
  • 2
    @bakk It would kill me to explain the joke/nuance. It would kill other people' s joy from understanding my extraordinarily clever joke. But I don't wanna hijack this serious thread anymore.
  • 2
    @aviophile Making inflammatory claims about demographic superiority when you work in the public sector is a ballsy move, dude.
  • 1
    @aviophile out of curiosity and For The Meme, where do femboys land on this scale?
  • 4
    Humanity never ceases to disappoint
  • 2
    To add more points to the discussion, I see the hypocrisy in this situation like this

    1. Twitter bans some people: They were NAZIS!
    2. But they were not really NAZI, far from it: Develop your own application then!
    3. OK, here is Parlor(Parler?): We are removing Parler from stores!(This basically makes it near impossible on iOS, harder on Android). If you don't like, develop your own OS.

    Maybe in close future, cloud systems won't serve to wrong apps.

    Left being highly dominant in tech can only go in one way and we have seen the hints about it in last century as distopian USSR and Fascist Italy/Germany.
  • 2
    FX [ Tries hard to figure out how the argument started.. ]

    Thank goodness we aren't censored here..
  • 1
    > An entire platform was removed

    > from Google Play

    Is the solution to that, a platform that works via a website, so you don't need to install an app ?

    Are there any mobile phone Operating Systems, that anyone can write an app for and install it without them trying to block you ?
  • 4
    @Nanos

    > Are there any mobile phone Operating Systems that...

    No. This is a large problem.
  • 6
    @aviophile This is not about left vs. right, this is about things like violence. An unmoderated community can't prevent the spread of misinformation, encouragement of violence, etc. That's a problem, and has nothing to do about you leaning to the left or right. Most conservatives behave, and don't get banned from the regular platforms in the first place.
  • 6
    @bakk Twitter didn't do anything like this when the BLM riots happened. Instead, Twitter banned critics. It's not about violence at all.
  • 4
    @bakk Misinformation is not a legal crime. Would you ban me when I say the weather is sunny when it is obviously cloudy. The problem is fact checkers, deciders are all on one side of spectrum.

    There are people on Twitter that blamed Trump with murdering 300000 citizen because of his incompetence(Covid), largely from leftist Twitter. Would you support banning those people? Or, if he is such a murderer, would not that justify killing or forcefully removing him? Is this rethoric not incitement to violence?

    As I think, you are talking from position of power. Knowing fully well your side is winning(nothing) therefore your side or truth is winning, when people who decides what is truth or not all the samethinkers.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop They didn't ban people who were responsible for violence? Do you have a source for that?
  • 4
    @bakk Here's whom they did actually ban: https://thewrap.com/twitter-bans-ka...
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop Haha, I hadn't heard of that. Outside the conversation about censorship, she's a hilariously vile idiot. It doesn't surprise me that she was banned.
  • 2
    @junon Haha, that's not the point. Haha, read what exactly got her banned. Haha, oh why reading. Haha.
  • 4
    @aviophile Private platforms have their own rules, it doesn't matter if it's not a law. They're not the government. A free market allows for this...

    The president being responsible for a lot of deaths can be quite subjective. Misinformation is a problem when provably false claims are spread in order to actively misinform people in a way that could actually be harmful in the long-run. It was just an example anyway.

    An extreme example: if ISIS went on twitter and did things that directly or indirectly would lead to violence and people being misinformed (eg. with an intent to recruit people), should twitter not be able to ban them? Them being there causes harm to others, and to twitters brand.
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop Like I said, *outside the conversation about censorship*. My observation was merely about her, and that it doesn't surprise me Twitter decided to ban her. It said nothing on whether or not I thought Twitter was right for doing so.

    I'm allowed to my opinion of her.
  • 1
    well this has gone to shit and mostly stayed there... joy of joys!
  • 6
    @Parzi Well, at least it went from insults to a okay interresting discussion again.
  • 4
    don't care about the stupid drama in this thread but fuck google and fuck silicon valley.

    Embrace decentralized, free/libre software
  • 4
    Wow, 2 people having a private conversation on a plane supporting Trump were kicked off a plane. Delta is now saying you cannot travel if you have an affiliation with certain political parties. This is unreal.
  • 1
    @Demolishun yelling "are there any hillary bitches on the flight?" doesn't seem to be "private."

    EDIT: wait, that's 2016. my bad.
  • 1
    @Demolishun Wait what, source?
  • 1
    @bakk Its not on MSM, not sure where to find it. I am on Telegram with the Q-Anon group. They a bit fruit cakey, but they got video of actual shit on there.
  • 2
    @Demolishun All I was able to find was some video on YouTube with 44 views that shows no context at all. These things are often taken out of context.
  • 2
    guarantee it will be spun to white supremacy or violent maga.
  • 1
    @Demolishun i mean there were some pockets of twitter saying things like "this is what happens when you don't beat white people" and similar shit during the actual like event, so...
  • 2
    @bakk iirc, there were a lot of terrorist groups using facebook as recruiting ground, twitter as well was filled with isis propoganda. Until they started to chop heads and burn gays, they were not touched easily.
  • 3
    @Nanos you can distribute apps freely on android. For example ad blocking apps are not allowed on Google Play, so they must be distributed elsewhere. One Play alternative, where you can find open source apps, is F-Droid. You can even run android without any Google-specific apps and only pure AOSP.
  • 0
  • 3
    Let's draw the fucking line exactly where it should be: violence.
    If ppl are violent or using your platform to encourage violence, (and by default, leading to terrorizing others) then you should remove them otherwise you'll also be held accountable for providing them with the platform for it.
  • 2
    Fun fact: apparently Parler has been removed from AWS hosting, and most other places have told them they can't be hosted with them. "If no Trump supporters can say ANYTHING, they can't riot!"

    until they move platforms and make <YOUR_FAVORITE_PLATFORM> their new home *with a grudge against you now* you fucking dipshits
  • 1
    @Parzi Tbh this is one of the reasons i would never touch AWS, amazon is already known for their shitty anti-competitior bullshit and terminating anything slightly close to be competition. So it shouldnt really suprise anyone that amazon would terminate services they dont like.
  • 2
    @Fast-Nop sounds like cyberpunk 🤔
  • 1
    @NoMad I agree with drawing lines (even though there are moral dilemmas in that)... but private companies that have the power to "take the law into their own hands" shouldn't be the ones to draw the line.

    And while I understand Google and Apple taking down the app in accordance with their terms of service, as they are customer facing platforms... AWS terminating their hosting agreement, without (at least to my knowledge) law enforcement intervention, is what scares me the most.

    Maybe I don't understand how hosting laws work in the US, and what are the responsibilities of hosting providers... But from my stand point it looks like they essentially went full vigilante on this one and that's setting a dangerous precedent.
  • 1
    @vigidis They did, yes. They will probably not even be fined for it, as there's usually a "we reserve the right to terminate your service for any reason at any time" clause in there somewhere, it's a US-based business after all. Even if they are fined... i mean, it's Amazon.
  • 1
    @NoMad Plenty of people were calling for horrible things back in 2016 on Twitter, Facebook, etc. Still are, actually. I don't see either of them giving any amount of a shit, NOR are they being fucking demolished like Parler is.
  • 3
    @Parzi the internet is essentially an oligarchy at this point so I'm not surprised.

    That's exactly why companies shouldn't have the right to draw lines... Because they'll only do it for they're own benefit.
  • 3
    @vigidis private companies have always had the choice to refuse service. This is not "law" rather it is "we don't like this guy, we don't want to offer him services."
    Did they keep this up so far because he was the president and had power back then? Maybe. But every tyranny comes to an end eventually.
  • 2
    @Parzi "calling" has freedom of speech backing it up. But when it comes to an event aimed to be a violent takeover, somebody must go to jail.
  • 0
    @NoMad like... the people that walked in? If we're gonna punish their communications platforms, half of them were using Snapchat and Insta and Twitter and Facebook at the time of the crime, so let's murder those platforms. A lot of them were probably using Samsung and Apple devices, so let's kill those companies as well. After all, the platforms they communicated on didn't try to stop them, so therefore they're evil and agree with them!
  • 2
    @Parzi If you think that's the same, I think you misunderstood what Parler has been like, haha.
  • 0
    @bakk seems to have been exactly what happened from here...
Add Comment