Not going to go into free speech = government because I think that point has been beaten to death.

Was there speech on Parler that was above board in the sense that it wasn’t people up to no good? I’m sure there was. It’s unrealistic to think that everyone there was advocating for a violent act to happen. Unfortunately, Apple and Amazon (Amazon documenting cases of threatened murder, rape, etc. that Parler wouldn’t remove) allegedly had been requesting that Parler clean up the more extreme content which allegedly they refused to/didn’t do. To Apple, that’s probably no different than an application being riddled in bugs and as such they don’t want it on their app store.

Every private platform has some standards, this is hardly anything new.

Do you think Blizzard banning WoW idiots yelling racial slurs is abrogating their right to free speech too?

It is, but that's not the point. Blizzard isn't trying to redefine free speech, Apple is.

Seriously? So Blizzard getting rid of someone yelling "n----- n----- n-----" nonstop in general chat, you really think that's violating your right to free speech?

Lemme guess, dang banning trolls here on HN is also a violation of free speech, and he should let people say whatever they want, whenever they want?

You realize how insane this stance sounds, right?

To the free speech absolutist, everything should be allowed everywhere.

To someone like me, private corporations can kick people off their services at their pleasure -- and if that did become a problem (but not before), I'd suggest regulating them or building a public alternative. To someone like me, you also can't make false medical claims or falsely advertise your services or falsely label food.

To someone further away from free speech absolutism, private companies should have a department of censorship that responds to the government, the zeitgeist, whatever.

To someone like me, though, there's a lot of knobs and dials to turn on the "what amount of speech lets people thrive and not die" machine and I'm content to have society keep fiddling with them in various ways, as a process and not an end-point.

Technically, it IS violating free speech when anything is censored. That doesn't mean that particular speech is condoned. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that, you just don't want to understand it.

Apple isn't simply moderating misc examples of speech they don't condone, they're attempting to install your (incorrect) version of what free speech means. This is some serious 1984 stuff in action, and a lot of smart people are too ignorant to see what's happening in front of their eyes.

Businesses are in no way obligated to not discriminate (so long as it's not a reason that's due to a protected class). It seems like you disagree.

Apple has a private platform. Apple can do what it wants, whether they use the typical definition of free speech or they redefine terms. The bigger problem is that there are no public platforms despite this technology. And I don't know if governments have ever given citizens more than rights (like, do they have these rights and a platform to express those rights).

So if your private water utility company decides to cut off your water access because they don't agree with your politics, would you say "welp, they're a private company and they can do as they please."?

Cutting communication channels is historically an act of war.

The private water utility company is a false equivocation. Government regulations view this as a natural resource and regulate it heavily. Privatization of natural resources often raises the specter or threat of cut-off as you suggest and is traditionally subject to government intervention.

I believe you are right - cutting communication channels of a sovereign state can be an act of war. But these are private channels. I don't think we are anywhere near classifying these platforms as public utilities, much less natural resources, at least in the United States.

You're argument is a lazy argument that accepts the weaponization of free speech, which is even more scary. Parler was never about free speech. If you read up on its making, it was dark money, russian bots, alt-right hate groups and their cover is this absurdly stupid front of free speech that no alt-right fascist person actually wants. They just use it against you.

Your*

Most of the people who are saying this never actually looked at the site, the reality is the majority of the content seen was no worse than that of Twitter, in some ways better and more politer (that's what you get with an echo chamber), but every argument leveraged against Parler could be leveraged 10x over against Twitter. So no matter what intentions are, the effect is the same. You can't in good faith argue Parler deserves to be taken down anymore than Twitter and many other sites. Twitter does not enforce many of its own rules, even when reported a lot of violent, hateful content stays up for days or weeks while very minor infractions will get enforced. So even what they do enforce is very inconsistently enforced.

Given how bad Twitter is and has been over the course of its history, you can't really argue in good faith this wasn't just a pretext from eliminating a competitor to the dominance of SV big tech from the market.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

Your* entire argument actually supports what I said.

Twitters goal was never to weaponize freedom of speech. You can't blame twitter for being anti-free speech when the basis for kicking off Trump was violation of TOS. It was never a freedom of speech issue to begin with.

Parler on the other hand weaponizes freedom of speech does so in a very juvenile way to confuse people. The GOP runs with this too.

It's how conspiracy theorists thrive - they weaponize authority in every way - be it authority because of comprehensive study, understanding and scientific evidence or authority because of governance, speech, status quo.

It's pathetic really... and i have to laugh that you seem to suggest you have some pillar to stand on merely because you corrected what my iphone chose to autocorrect.

lol

Seems rather obvious that this 'Big Tech bloc' will eventually turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.

No. One can make the argument that there are kinds of speech that need to be restricted because of reasons x, y and z and still recognize that they are speech.

His take is rather fascistic in that he just redefines what a thing is to avoid dealing with the unpleasant parts.

No, it’s not a sterilization campaign, it’s family planning.

I would say the only thing lazy here is your interpretation of this situation. Speech can be used to sow conspiratorial rage and foment/plan real life harm. At some point it can't be tolerated. That cutoff line is not easy to define, but that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't exist.

Nothing you said is relevant to what they're talking about. This is about Apple trying to redefine commonly used words to avoid any discussions about limiting free speech. It's like when Verizon claimed that "Unlimited" is just a marketing term, and doesn't actually mean no limit.

Corporations don't have to protect first amendment rights of others, they actually have them in the US.

The Supreme Court has granted corporations in the US at least a partial right to free speech and political speech in special. Even against protected minorities (Gay wedding cake decision).

Maybe Tim Cook could say that Apple is using it's free speech rights as a corporation when denying service.

You’re going on a tangent. He’s saying it’s not a speech issue because what he banned is not considered speech, so it does not fit under that umbrella and thus irrelevant to discuss a a speech issue at all.

I think Tim Cook is sidestepping for PR purposes. We should not discuss the issue in his terms.

The question is not if this particular speech is protected or not, because it does not apply to Apple at all.

The only question is if Apple has right. It has.