Re:Tim Cook Defends Parler App Suspension: ‘We Don’t Conside...
by TulliusCicero on Sunday January 17, 2021 @11:17AM
(#25811919)
In principle, I have no problem with that. Transparency is good, and it can lead to better business behavior without more ham-fisted regulations that simply force businesses to do what the government wants. It's the "nutrition facts label" strategy.
But I really think a better solution is just allowing more app stores or third party app installation. Let people choose who they want curating their content. Apple can still enforce their own store policies like they want, and if enough consumers revolt, they have somewhere else to go.
Re:Tim Cook Defends Parler App Suspension: ‘We Don’t Conside...
by freedomben on Sunday January 17, 2021 @12:44PM
(#25812855)
Agree completely. Competition is the real solution. Apple surely won't do it by choice, but maybe the recent antitrust action will force their hand and this will all be moot.
I suspect the hardest part would be defining it in such a way as to disallow Parler but still allow Twitter et al. Which, kind of proves the point of people who are suggesting Parler is being held to a different standard than the others.
IIWM (which of course it is not) I would start with something like, "Platform has a system in place to provide early detection of explicitly violent content at a rate of at least ${x}%. Platform has a system in place to allow users to report content in violation of the platform, and review of reports is completed within ${y} hours."
Of course what is "violent" is subjective too. To some people talking about hanging a person is not violent, while to others calling someone by the wrong pronouns is violence. A common standard would indeed be hard, but I think it is important.