If your going to argue with a straight face the this new situation is the same as Parler, your putting Element side by side with some very bad company.
Just go reread what gp wrote. He basically said the exact opposite of this. You are putting words in his mouth and interpereting his comment in the least charitable way possible.
They are in the same boat as parler in the sense that another communication platform not owned by a big corp is being targeted and removed.
Matrix likely will come back for some of the reasons you mention . But fact is google and apple arbitrarily without warning or notice remove apps from their store. The stores should be considered utility like electricity google should not able to refuse service randomly.
Parler is owned by the Mercer family, of Renaissance Technologies fame, one of the most successful hedge funds in existence. They are personally worth tens of billions of dollars.
Also just cause they worth billions means they will back parler with billions. Parler itself is pretty small fish financially speaking
A large portion of these protests were planned on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/13/faceboo...
...should they be removed and silenced because of it? Or should all of these gigantic tech companies with the checkbooks to provide exhaustive moderation enjoy their 230 powers while denying the right to all of the little guys?
Parlor and Gab are fairly harrowing examples of what happens when censorship occurs. People leave platforms with diverse views and head to echo chambers. Those folks end up having stronger, more radical opinions because they were forced into a corner.
No one has ever given me any compelling reason for censorship. Hate is defeated in the open, it is fairly impossible to deal with in private channels. Censors also cannot censor everything, so content always slips through the cracks.
Did not know this, you have a source for this?
Because no one attacked or stormed the capitol during those protests.
???
However, when looking on a bigger picture of the recent takedowns and trying to make sense of it, it does indeed seem to be connected. The only conclusion that seems rational to me is as follows:
Everyone tries to push their burden of moderation on people below them, because no one can actually keep up with it. And if the moderation is not enforced, they risk being taken down by someone above them. That would explain why everyone is so trigger happy when it comes to censorship. When the WallStreetBets people were taken down by Facebook and Discord, they didn't ban the individuals who were actually violating the policy, but the entire community.
It's also worth to note, that the takedowns can be enforced selectively, as we see here - Google obviously won't take down their own browser or email client, that also allows to access abusive content - assuming that's what Element was taken down for. It's probably selectively enforced on the social media too, but I'm out of the loop on what actually goes on there, so to be fair, I cannot prove it.
If this is actually what is happening, the only solution as far as I see it, is to extend the First Amendment to social media. Another solution could be to convince the people and the media to stop pressuring companies into deplatforming other people, but that's in my opinion definitely not going to happen. So it's either applying the protections of 1A to the internet or the censorship will get worse and worse.
Indeed, people made that point, but I don't see how this is a useful distinction. Parler (the app) that Google and Apple removed is also just a client, that facilitates access to Parler (the social media website) that can be accessed via other means, e.g. a web browser. And Google and Apple didn't really have any problems with the app itself, which has no content on its own; they wanted different moderation policies on the website. As they have no direct control over the website, they acted against the client app; it was Amazon that took down the website.
One difference might be that Elements and Matrix have different developers and Parler (the app) and Parler (the social media website) have the same owner. But again, this is not a meaningful difference; e.g. if Google and Apple had problem with content on Reddit (the website), surely they would remove both Reddit (the app) and all 3rd party clients, Apollo, Boost, Sync, etc, at least those that fail to actively censor the objectionable parts of the website in the app.
So Apple/Google saw Parler (the website) as having dangerous content and took it out on Parler (the app). If they are justified in that; it is not a big stretch that they saw Matrix (protocol) as having dangerous content and took it out on Element (app), and presumably other clients. I don't think whether it is decentralized or not matters from an app store policy point of view.
Two companies having the say on which programs almost everyone can run on their mobile devices, especially on the iOS side, is a huge problem, that becomes increasingly evident as they start to flex their muscles.
That’s a big “if” though. The “abusive content” angle is just a working theory. It could just as easily be Goodge taking a dislike to a website link offering donations outside of the Play store (or something equally mundane).
The problem is, until Google respond, we have no idea why the takedown happened.
And here lies the real problem: without Google being transparent about their takedowns it leaves app developers in a difficult position where they can’t really support their uses.
The one slight good thing from all this is that at least with Android you can side load apps (which is more than can be said for iOS).
And just to be clear, I'm not saying that the accusations of censorship and calls for regulations are dishonest on our part. I really do believe that what they are doing is censorship and they need to be regulated.
> Morning all. We've had contact from Google confirming that the suspension is due to abusive content somewhere on Matrix; we're working with them to explain how Element works and get the situation resolved.
There's a much simpler explanation: Google wants as much of your communication as possible to go through them or their partners, so they can monetise it. People using Parler or Matrix don't leak any information to Big Tech, so commercially it makes sense to deter people from using apps like that, and they'll use whatever excuse they can get away with.
To support my explanation, see for example this:
https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/25/21532883/paypal-cuts-tie...
PayPal terminated Epik's account, because they refused to kick out Gab. I believe there were a couple more cases where the money people pressured companies to do things like that. My memory is getting blurry with this though, so I can't point you to the articles.
And that leads me to something even more important. Gab was not only kicked out off their domain registrar, but the owner's family was blacklisted by Visa. So the social media is actually the least of my concerns right now, the most urgent thing at the moment is regulating the banks, so they can't terminate your account for no reason. Because they will come after your money at some point. And good luck paying in cash in a middle of pandemic.
The first amendment works now by having clear boundaries between private and public spaces. Public spaces have clear first amendment protections. I can hold a sign on a publicly owned sidewalk (well, public right of way) begging for money or praising 'bong hits for Jesus'. But private spaces do not. I can't do the same thing on your living room. This allows folks to exercise their freedom of association, which is a pretty big part of the first amendment.
Where and how do you draw the line between public and private spaces then in an online context? Should the government be required to host unmoderated and uncensored discussion boards? And how do you keep the unregulated public spaces useful when such spaces are easily overrun by trolls and spammers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
As to how you would implement it, Poland recently had a proposal that if you were banned from a social media website, you can appeal via the government in a certain period of time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25736155
I'm not a lawyer, so I might be saying a bunch of nonsense here, but you could categorize the social media into topical (eg. HN is about technology) or "general purpose", off-topic services (Facebook, Youtube). Or just do it by the size of user base. Facebook has like a 2 or 3 billion users, let's not pretend it's the same as a comment section on your blog.
It's just to throw some ideas around, because again, not a lawyer, so I can't come up with a robust policy on the spot and take care of every potential loophole.
I would love this, personally.
Element is a chat client. It's an empty piece of software for use with your own choice of server. Element is to a chat server, as Thunderbird is to an email server. It's basically a glorified IRC client. It contains no content of its own.
Parler was basically a curated, centrally run, Facebook-message-board-replacement for neonazis, antisemites, qanon conspiracy theorists, and the lunatic fringe of the alt-right.
Any browser that allows accessing these PWAs will be banned from the app/play store. Let's not kid ourselves this isn't what's coming next.
But on the bright side, I think if it was Mozilla with 90% of the browser market and not Google, this would've happened already.