People will surely point out the obvious differences between the takedown of Parler and Element and I'd agree that it's not exactly the same thing, since Parler is its own platform and Element is just a client.
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.
> Parler is its own platform and Element is just a client.
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).
Sure. But as we learned, the only way to get them to respond at all is to do what we're doing right now. Blow the story up all over the internet, accuse them of censorship, call for regulations and hopefully get the media to pick it up.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
In theory the recent Office of Comptroller of the Currency rule banning financial discrimination should stop that. But I am sure the current administration will be quick to reverse it. They like to use all tools to go after their political enemies
>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.
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?
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.
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.
For the past few years, it seems that Trump was really the only thing standing in the way of Big Tech; but now that they've crushed him and the fringe extremists, the extremes have shifted and they are only going to wield their powers even more. The events of the past few months are certainly showing a pattern, and quite frankly, it's extremely scary to see what I thought would happen, actually happen. They have killed the canaries, and the frog is starting to boil.
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.