Parler given 24 hours to clean up its act or be banned by Apple

I'm not sure how I feel about this.


But as long as crazy Trumpworld talk continues fomenting violence and death, I say fuck 'em both.


Apple has a right to protect itself from liability in Parler-promoted violence, sedition or what have you.


I believe in freedom of speech and a free press.



Trump, like other fascists before him, fought to tear down that institution on his march to power.


I think we can all agree that it's time for the damage to stop.


Fuck that guy.



https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-repo...l-hill-attack/


Apple reportedly threatens to ban Parler app after Capitol Hill attack

James Martin/CNET



Apple told Parler it'll ban the social network's app from its app store if it doesn't start to moderate its content better, BuzzFeed reported Friday. The warning comes two days after a mob of Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol, an event Apple reportedly said Parler's platform could have facilitated. Parler has been rife with violent comments since before the attack on the Capitol.


"We have received numerous complaints regarding objectionable content in your Parler service, accusations that the Parler app was used to plan, coordinate, and facilitate the illegal activities in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 that led (among other things) to loss of life, numerous injuries, and the destruction of property. The app also appears to continue to be used to plan and facilitate yet further illegal and dangerous activities," Apple warned Parler on Friday, according to Buzzfeed.


Apple didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.








In a Parler post, Chief Executive John Matze challenged Apple's position and said it doesn't hold Twitter or Facebook to the same standard. "Apparently they believe Parler is responsible for ALL user generated content on Parler," he said. "By the same logic, Apple must be responsible for ALL actions taken by their phones. Every car bomb, every illegal cell phone conversation, every illegal crime committed on an iPhone, Apple must also be responsible for."

The App Store is the only way to distribute apps to iPhones, so banishment poses a serious challenge to online services. However, they often can still be reached through websites.


Apple's reported effort is an example of "deplatforming," an attempt to curtail disinformation, racist remarks, incitements to violence and other problematic communications. The modern internet provides an abundance of platforms to directly communicate to millions of people, and it's proven challenging to balance the benefits of online discussion with the drawbacks.
Content crackdown on social media

The biggest example of deplatforming happened Friday when Twitter permanently suspended President Donald Trump's account "due to the risk of further incitement of violence."


After deaths, vandalism and property damage -- not to mention an insult to a national symbol of democracy -- social media sites have been taking a harder stance against activity they see as dangerous. Facebook and Instagram blocked Trump from new posts for a time. Reddit cut off The_Donald, a major right-wing discussion forum and Twitter banned several high-profile accounts associated with the right-wing, bogus QAnon conspiracy theory.


It's not clear if Google is considering similar action for Android phones. The company didn't respond to a request for comment.


In a Friday tweet, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent New York Democrat, called for Google and Apple to take action after reported calls for violence on Parler.
Parler's growing importance

Parler is growing in importance to right-wing activists as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have placed restrictions on Trump's social media accounts after loyalists stormed the Capitol on Wednesday.


"Our investigation has found that Parler is not effectively moderating and removing content that encourages illegal activity and poses a serious risk to the health and safety of users in direct violation of your own terms of service," Apple reportedly told Parler, citing a handful of examples purportedly showing violent threats. "Content of this dangerous and harmful nature is not appropriate for the App Store. As you know from prior conversations with App Review, Apple requires apps with user generated content to effectively moderate to ensure objectionable, potentially harmful content is filtered out. Content that threatens the well being of others or is intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store."

Enema of the State.

You believe in freedom of speech only when you agree with the content!
Many of your threads prove this

Your ignorance is becoming legendary.
There is no freedom of speech on any social media.

They are privately owned. The owners decide the rules.

Many of your posts prove you don't have a clue about much of anything.

You believe in freedom of speech only when you agree with the content!
Many of your threads prove this Originally Posted by winn dixie

Your ignorance is becoming legendary.
There is no freedom of speech on any social media.

They are privately owned. The owners decide the rules.

Many of your posts prove you don't have a clue about much of anything. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Parrot much?

This argument has been proved to be full of holes! They are responsible for content. They sale ads and info. Their site is for "public" use! The Supreme Court would chew up your argument in minutes! Thats why the dims didnt want Trumps and the Gop's bill to move forward on this subject! Its clear that they are suppressing free speech!

NEXT!

This argument has been proved to be full of holes! They are responsible for content. They sale ads and info. Their site is for "public" use! The Supreme Court would chew up your argument in minutes! Thats why the dims didnt want Trumps and the Gop's bill to move forward on this subject! Its clear that they are suppressing free speech! Originally Posted by winn dixie

You are thoroughly incorrect.

This is the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It states that Congress cannot make laws suppressing speech, or the press.

It says nothing about the media, private parties, or anyone else.

I'm afraid the Supreme Court would chew up your argument in minutes!

Buh Bye!!

You are thoroughly incorrect.

This is the first amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It states that Congress cannot make laws suppressing speech, or the press.

It says nothing about the media, private parties, or anyone else.

I'm afraid the Supreme Court would chew up your argument in minutes!

Buh Bye!! Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

It says nothing about the media, private parties, or anyone else. Good gawd! The media does or doesnt have freedom of speech? You proved my argument !

How many times have I schooled you? Way too many times!

Dims were scared to death for this case to go before the Supreme Court cause they know the inevitable outcome! It is clear suppression of free speech!

Hawley is a Constitutional Scholar. If, and that is a big if, he actually brings his frivolous lawsuit to court and it is heard, I would be surprised. That little dickhead who still can't believe he's on ignore might have something. The question is, is publishing and platforming enough of a difference?


You are still on ignore you dickhead. You just don't get it.





Publisher Cancels Book By Sen. Hawley, Citing His Role In Inciting Capitol Attack


https://www.npr.org/sections/congres...capitol-attack

Hawley — who was photographed early Wednesday afternoon offering a raised fist in apparent solidarity with the crowd that would later attack the houses of Congress — responded on Twitter to the decision by "the woke mob @simonschuster." He threatened legal action and accused the publisher of quashing free speech.

"This could not be more Orwellian," Hawley wrote. "I was representing my constituents, leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity, which they have now decided to rebrand as sedition."

"Only approved speech can now be published," he added. "This is the Left looking to cancel everyone they don't approve of. I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have. We'll see you in court."

Simon & Schuster's decision comes as former Missouri Republican Sen. John Danforth, commenting in the wake of the assault on the Capitol, described his recruitment of Hawley to run for the U.S. Senate in 2018 as "the biggest mistake I've ever made in my life."

Remember the balance of the SCOTUS.

Reported!

It says nothing about the media, private parties, or anyone else. Good gawd! The media does or doesnt have freedom of speech? You proved my argument !

How many times have I schooled you? Way too many times!

Dims were scared to death for this case to go before the Supreme Court cause they know the inevitable outcome! It is clear suppression of free speech! Originally Posted by winn dixie

You are thoroughly ignorant of the law.

Munch is right. The social networks are privately owned companies. You have no more of a right to post trash or instigate violence on their platforms than you do in the pages of the NY Times or on the property of your local bar. You are their by invitation only and it can be revoked at any time.

This will only change if the government deems the social media platforms to be public utilities, like the phone company. Then they government can regulate them. But we aren't there yet.

But if you think otherwise, please cite the SPECIFIC case law that says that social media platforms cannot kick an offender off.

You are thoroughly ignorant of the law.

Munch is right. The social networks are privately owned companies. You have no more of a right to post trash or instigate violence on their platforms than you do in the pages of the NY Times or on the property of your local bar. You are their by invitation only and it can be revoked at any time.

This will only change if the government deems the social media platforms to be public utilities, like the phone company. Then they government can regulate them. But we aren't there yet.

But if you think otherwise, please cite the SPECIFIC case law that says that social media platforms cannot kick an offender off. Originally Posted by Kinkster90210

Youre word playing, but correct in YOUR example of violence! Newspapers and tv networks are privately owned but must give equal opportunity to candidates on both sides and etc. facey and twitty violated that! Your argument otherwise has no sand.
Again, why were the dims so against the bill that would have fixed this? Cause they knew it was violating the first!

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

But as long as crazy Trumpworld talk continues fomenting violence and death, I say fuck 'em both.

Apple has a right to protect itself from liability in Parler-promoted violence, sedition or what have you.

I believe in freedom of speech and a free press.

Trump, like other fascists before him, fought to tear down that institution on his march to power.

I think we can all agree that it's time for the damage to stop. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I think Apple is making a mistake - even if they have the right to do it - and they are also applying a higher standard to conservative platforms that to progressive ones.

There are plenty of leftist accounts on Twitter and FB that incite violence. They proudly talk about punch a Nazi, but their definition of Nazi includes everyone to the right of them. But the liberal platforms look the other way at that.

The liability concern is wrong I think. I don't think Parler can be held liable for what posters say on the site, so I don't see how Apple, who is one layer removed, can be held liable.

All that being said, I think it is time for Section 230 to be revamped and the social media platforms should be deemed utilities and be regulated.

FB and Twitter want to make billions selling advertising and they want to do it with a staff of 37 people who just operate the servers. They don't want to incur the cost of hiring thousands of monitors to remove porn material or violence inciting material. Too bad about them.

Regulations should be put in place to eliminate the anonymous accounts. Twitter members should be required to sign up with credit cards, just like FB users. This will eliminate 90% of the keyboard warriors. Then prosecutions should be made against anyone who threatens another person. And that includes doxxing.

I lean towards breaking up some of these platforms or at least carving off chunks. Apple charges outrageous app fees for the Apple Store - 30% in some cases. On the other hand, I like that they keep tight quality control on the apps, thereby preventing malicious code and spyware from being inserted in the apps.

At the very least, they can be stopped from acquiring any more companies. Too many tech startups just want to make a first iteration of a good product and then get bought up by Apple or Google or FB. Put an end to that.

Either way, something has to give. These companies are far too powerful.