Comment on Apple removes app created by Andrew Tate

• avater@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  are you really comparing women rights movement to the things a cunt like tate is doing ?

  what the actual fuck?

  source

  • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m not saying their causes of equal merit, but I am saying women’s liberation started as a minority position in society, heavily censored, not provided a platform to speak on. They were extremely unpopular.

    By creating open platforms, that anyone can use, we don’t have to rely on the people in power allowing voices to be heard. People’s voices can participate, and survive by their own merits.

    Every struggle in society, with a equality especially, starts with secret message passing, secret organization, finding a voice. We need to keep the pathways open so that repressed people can have a voice. Unfortunately that means opinions we don’t agree with, as well as opinions we do agree with.

    source

    • avater@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      those are not opinions this is highly predatory behavior and indoctrination of a lowlife which wants to make money with a scheme…

      those people don’t need a platform.

      source

      • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Then I look forward to a court, following due process, putting a media gag order on them taking down their web presence.

        It shouldn’t be left up to the whims of private organizations, to remove somebody from the public discourse.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ABCDE@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That isn’t what was said, but what you inferred.

    source
• chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I respectfully disagree, if we think speech is a human right, it has to be for everyone, or it’s for no one.

  This is where everyone gets it wrong. Can you say anything you want? Sure, I suppose so. But there are CONSEQUENCES for what you say. One of those consequences is that a particular bit of speech is frowned upon at best, and made illegal at worst. It would be totally fine to yell “Bomb,” on an airplane if there was never a bomb on an airplane, and never would be. But there has been, and there probably will be again, so you can’t yell that without CONSEQUENCES. The consequences that these asshats are facing for their particular brand of bullshit is that they are being silenced, because they should not be saying the things that they are. Plain and simple. is speech a right, sure, until it’s abused, and then the rights of the many override the right to speech of the few.

  source

  • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I agree with you, and in your examples I would expect the consequences to come from the judiciary after following due process publicly.

    I would not expect the gas company, the electrical company, the water company to turn off utilities for the person who yelled bomb on an airplane. I would expect a court to hand down a decision to rectify that situation.

    For our erstwhile plane enthusiast, I would expect them to still get basic utilities even though they’re unpopular. And I would defend their right to have water power and gas Even though they’re a social pariah.

    Because Apple, and Google are guardians of the public square on phones, which is how most people use the internet anyway, I think it’s reasonable to point out that progressive web apps are way to survive deplatforming for any organization.

    source

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No one has a right to make an app, let alone have that app published by a third company that has a responsibility to their shareholders, the public, and the government. By your definition, CSAM should be allowed on the app store until a judge orders it to be taken down… That’s not how the internet works, and you know it. The internet is about moderation–self, and imposed. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Reddit, Lemmy, and millions of others must rely on self moderation first, and then impose moderation if that fails. Then, and only then, when moderation at the app/website level fails, do these go to court to get at the root of the problem. I’m sorry that you feel moderation infringes on your right to free speech, but seriously, you have the most paper thin arguments for it.

      source

      • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I must have missed a communicated, I apologize. I do not expect Apple or Google to host anybody’s app at all. They’re allowed their own opinions.

        This is why I pointed out progressive web apps as an alternative to using app stores for deployment.

        I agree with your position

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I hope we agree that we don’t want them to ever normalize again. Just like there need to be rules to prevent people from tricking others, there need to be rules to prevent the spread of hatred that we know(!) leads to millions of innocents getting killed.

  source
• FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I respectfully disagree, if we think speech is a human right, it has to be for everyone, or it’s for no one.

  Let’s say you own a cafe with an open mic night. One day, someone comes in to the open mic night and starts yelling racist slogans and repeating Nazi rhetoric.

  You can let them continue because you’re a free speech absolutist, and lose your customers, or you can kick him out.

  There is no difference between this and what Apple or YouTube does except for scale.

  source

  • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I agree with you. And I’m not saying Apple, or YouTube or wrong for deplatforming them.

    I am pointing out people in this position can take advantage of an open internet to still have a platform for their voice that does not rely on gatekeepers.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ok, so Andrew Tate can open his own app store. Problem solved.

      source
• jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Ok, I’ll try to explain the issue with that. Do I have the right to pay someone to kill you? No. Then there’s already a limitation on my speech AND use of private property. How can we reconcile that with free speech? By thinking about why free speech or any human rights matters. I could go on a dissertation here, but I’ll skip what is easy to find online anyway and jump to the conclusion: human rights are positive rights that are intended to protect human dignity (in the philosophical sense of the indivisible and equal worth of all human life), so it follows that free speech only applies to speech that doesn’t go against that goal. If you don’t do this exercise you end up with the Paradox of Tolerance and all human rights crumble like a house of cards.

  source

  • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Right, and in society we have more or less agreed that the people who can exclude somebody’s speech, or make speech disappear, is the judiciary following due process. Private companies are not the judiciary.

    So if a court puts a gag order on this organization saying they can’t have an internet presence, that’s fine.

    In your example, hiring a hitman against me, I would expect a court to enact protection order, and perhaps even a gag order on yourself. Then I would expect platforms online to honor that gag order if you were to post anyway.

    If a private company, took it upon themselves to deplatform you without a court order, I would disagree with thatz even though your speech is against me. I hold this principle very highly, even when it’s against my own individual personal interests, because I want a stable society more than anything else.

    source

    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      A stable society is not one where you can go to all of your neighbors and tell them a random person is a pedophile in order to start a mob in the name of free speech.

      A stable society is not one where you can walk into a Walmart and start yelling the N-word but not get kicked out in the name of free speech.

      A stable society is not one where you can sexually harass a co-worker without repercussions in the name fo free speech.

      You don’t want a stable society, you want chaos.

      source

      • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I agree with your individual examples, but I would say a stable society is where any crazy crank can open a newsletter and mail it to people who subscribe to it. And the post office doesn’t get in the way of that. Without a court order.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• GreenMario@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  He can make his own website. Look up LAMP and get to work. You can’t actually be deplatformed from the entire internet so this argument is moot.

  source