ilmagico @ ilmagico @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

437

Joined

2 yr. ago

They can go the the next city over, or move, or heck, open their own cafe where all their nazi friends can hangout and not bother us. But, you cannot just open your 3rd party app store for iOS devices, or create your own OS for all your friends to use (well, you can, but ... you'd probably agree even opening your own cafe is much easier than taking on one of the largest corporations in America).

If that cafe (or chain) had a near monopoly on open mics, and somehow prevented others from having open mic nights, then yes, I'd say they should allow any protected free speech, but I should say they shouldn't be allow to get to that point.

Not exactly, they shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the market with unfair practices, should be required to allow app sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores and/or jailbreak without hacking (all things already true for Android btw). But until they do, then yes, their freedom should not be used to curtail other people's own freedom ("my freedom ends where yours begins" principle).

So much choice! The can pick Android or .. Android. Or Android.

Yes, I can choose to use the fediverse, with plenty of instances to choose from, as opposed to a handful of centralized alternatives, but as far as mobile platforms, my choices are exactly two, and there is no (viable) fediverse equivalent. Of course I chose the slightly more open one, Android, but that's hardly a real choice.

The only difference between this and Apple is scale.

Bingo, that makes all the difference, and that there are a lot more than two open mic cafes to choose from.

Cafés can rightfully kick those guys out, but when you're as big and power as Apple, the law should (but doesn't as of yet) curtail that power a bit, as it lends itself for immense abuse.

That's what you're saying, not me. Re-read my words, and if you actually want to have a civil and respectful conversation, I'll be here, but don't put words in my mouth

I have had girls halfway through giving me their number, stop because they realize it's not an iPhone

They're doing you a favor: they're telling you they're too shallow and care more about what you own than who you are. Works great to filter those people, I'd call it a feature not a bug :)

Are you seriously telling me you've never been in a single groupchat where people say things like "Wait who doesn't have an iPhone in here"? Because I've been in dozens.

Never ever, but maybe my friends actually care about me more than my phone (also we use whatsapp so it doesn't matter). Only thing I can say is, sorry ...

I meant regulation requiring interoperability to prevent walled gardens. Kinda like net neutrality, but for "platforms", if you will.

"innocent until proven guilty" is a Government thing. [...] A corporation is treated like a group of people, they're not a Government.

You're right and I'm not denying this. I'm just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

I'm surprised your point on freedom of speech in other countries is hypothetical as you expressed the US version is so flawed as to be a "grave danger"

My point was simply "I speak for America as I'm not sure about other countries", but, I went googling around and it seems other countries (I looked mostly at Europe) are not much better, so I have to conclude freedom of speech is in grave danger pretty much everywhere in the world.

The US (or European) version isn't flawed, it's behind the times, as internet, mobile phones and social media didn't exist when it was written.

I expect that once he's convicted, not just accused, they should not only be allowed, but required to ban him ("innocent until proven guilty").

And yes, I believe once your platform get big enough to be effectively considered a public square, it should be protected by the 1st amendment.

I don't know if there are other countries where this is true (maybe some European country? not sure) I'm just saying in this thread I'm speaking only for the USA.

See, when it's your own home, you can claim that freedom, not to allow unwanted guests. Already if you have a public business, there are anti-discrimination rules. And if you own the whole goddamn city, if that was possible, you probably should have even more restrictions to imposing your will. Apple & Google together have a monopoly on smartphones, so it's like someone owned all the public squares in the country and decided certain things or people are banned. Legal, maybe, good, not really.

(If he does get convicted of rape, btw, then he will lose the right to live anywhere but a prison, and so he should also lose access to platforms like Apple. The problem is, that hasn't happened yet)

Dude nobody here is advocating for a rapist, period. We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.

As a privately owned (really, public) company, they do reserve those right. I believe that's a mistake, and that the constitution should protect free speech even on those platforms, even though it currently doesn't.

Edit: I don't mean they should make it easy to install Tate's app, mind you, just "possible". Just allowing app sideloading like Android, behind a bunch of warnings and hoops to jump, would be enough.

You probably have Android which, while more open, is still ran by Google who could, at will, decide to change the rules tomorrow by forcing an update directly to your (or my) phone. Besides those two, there isn't much. While competition and free market is good, it's not always enough, sometimes regulation is needed.

I have android, I don't feel many "social ramifications" thankfully. Android is a bit more free, but it's still ran by a large corporation that can change the rules at will, so there is no truly free (as in "freedom") option. So, maybe it's a duopoly instead of a monopoly, not much better really.

(ok ok, there are some fringe minor alternatives, but not really ready for prime time).

In the USA (yes, there are other countries where Apple operates but anyways...) the 1st amendment, unfortunately, doesn't protect speech on social media, only from government persecution. We cannot read the minds of the framer of the constitution, but I firmly believe they are now rolling in their graves, as they couldn't have foreseen the internet and social media, and so didn't account for those.

Exactly because the 1st amendment is effectively neutered, freedom of speech in America is in grave danger and we shouldn't rejoice about it.

Ignore the downvotes. I'm glad somebody still believes in freedom, and not just the crazy ones (i.e. fuck Andrew Tate, but fuck censorship too). People have died for us to enjoy this right that others want to throw down the drain.

Somebody else gets it. Thanks

"land of the free" my ass ... that's the world we live in ...

Or stuff like:

Someone needs to firebomb the school board.

oh wait, that was you...

Honestly, I don't care if he's a climate denier or full on conspiracy theorist about everything, even a broken clock is right twice a day right? So when they say something right, I acknowledge it (and even people like you that, based on their profile are usually a bit less crazy, occasionally say crazy things as above).

I'm not the person you were replying to, but here's my take.

We don't need to tolerate intolerance, but that's different than "freedom of speech". We can still refuse to tolerate intolerance while still protecting freedom (I'm purposefully ignoring the whole "inciting violence" and "pyramid scheme" that would make this illegal, not just controversial, for the sake of this argument).

Example: on Android, you can still sideload apps at your own risk, protecting freedom, while Google can still remove it from their store, and so refusing to tolerate intolerance. (wow am I really defending Google? Well I guess at least they used not to be evil).