Alt-Right Twitter App Developers Sue Google After Gab.Ai App Is Kicked Out Of The Play Store
from the symbolic-acts-of-litigation dept
Google's decision to boot a controversial social media app from its Play store has resulted in a lawsuit. And it's a very strange lawsuit -- one that attempts to turn inconsistent moderation efforts into anti-trust allegations against Google.
Some background information is necessary. Some of this can be gleaned from the complaint [PDF], which was put together by Marc Randazza (of First Amendment fame), Ron Coleman (key to the Slants' Supreme Court trademark win), and Jordan Rushie (who has participated in/fought against copyright trolling efforts). Given the litigation credentials behind the filing, it's surprising there's not more to the complaint.
But first, the background:
Gab.ai is the plaintiff in this suit. Gab sprung to life as a Twitter alternative, built in response to a perceived crackdown on alt-right accounts. It's not as though the accusations are false. Twitter has frequently applied its moderation standards unequally, resulting in bans and shadowbans of alt-right accounts. As the lawsuit points out, Twitter removed alt-right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos verified checkmark -- not because Milo wasn't who he said he was, but because it apparently didn't like him or his millions of followers. Six months later, Twitter banned him for good, citing his harassment of actress Leslie Jones.
So, much like Voat became a Reddit for people who thought Reddit censored too much speech, Gab became Twitter for those who felt Twitter censored too much speech. Gab became a mostly-free alternative Twitter, supported by subscribers, and heavily-populated by alt-right Twitter users.
Gab claims to embrace free speech. It engages in very little moderation of users' content, only culling certain content like child porn, posting of private information, threats, spam, and use of the platform to sell illegal goods. It does not police "hate speech" like Facebook, Twitter, and Google do. It's the last part that bothers Google. Or at least that's the stated reason for Google's ban of Gab from its app store.
But this wasn't Gab's first app store ban. Apple blocked it twice, first citing pornographic content as the reason. (Obviously, Twitter allows pornographic posts and yet remains available in the iOS app store...) Gab added porn-blocking by default but was rejected again by Apple, with the company pointing to its rules on hate speech.
Pretty much the same thing happened with Google. Google claimed Gab did not include a "sufficient level of moderation" and did not act to remove content "encouraging violence and hate against groups of people."
Gab's response to Google's ban pointed out it shouldn't need to police speech that isn't actually unlawful just to stay in Google's app store graces. Roughly a month after Google's decision, Gab has sued. What should probably have been left to public shaming of Google for belatedly distancing itself from Gab's social media construct has now become a plea for federal intercession.
The lawsuit runs down the history of Gab, as well as Twitter's shutdown of prominent alt-right/white supremacist accounts. The antitrust action appears to be limited to Google's partnership with Twitter. Google now has access to Twitter's "firehose" -- all public posts from all Twitter users in real time. This allows Google to return tweets in its search results.
Apparently, this partnership -- combined with Google's domination of Android app services -- is evidence of Google's anticompetitive behavior. The problem with the argument is Google's unwieldy application of its app store policies doesn't appear to be Google attempting to eliminate a competitor. Gab doesn't directly compete with Google+. If anything, it's a Twitter competitor. Google's only interest in Twitter is better search results. Kicking Gab out of the app store doesn't remove its web presence, nor does it prevent Gab users from downloading the app directly from Gab itself.
Much is made of the danger of sideloading apps. And it's true sideloading poses greater risks to Android users, especially if they're careless with their sources. While this behavior is somewhat discouraged by the Android system during phone setup, the option to sideload can be turned on and off as needed to allow the installation of apps not included in Google's Play store.
The lawsuit makes better points about removal from the Play store having deleterious financial effects on Gab, including the loss of ad placements in Google store and targeted ad campaigns utilizing Google's tools to find new app users.
Included in the filing are several reasons why Gab's removal is inconsistent with Google's own app policies. But that doesn't turn this into an anticompetitive act on Google's part. The end result may be indistinguishable but there are plenty of innocuous reasons for the app's removal that have nothing to do with Google killing Gab to protect its partnership with Twitter.
But that's pretty much what the filing hopes the judge will find. Google's history of anticompetitive behavior is detailed in the lawsuit, as well as its forays into patent enforcement. Twitter's inconsistent application of its policies to shut down alt-right accounts is also detailed, providing evidence of nothing, considering Twitter isn't party to this lawsuit.
Hidden in all of this are two paragraphs on Section 230 which misconstrue protections afforded to entities like Gab.
Even if it were possible for a social media platform to censor "defamatory and mean-spirited content" generated by 250,000 users, a level of content censorship by a social media platform that extended to "defamatory" and "mean-spirited" content place at risk that service's status as a protected Internet Service Provider, as opposed to a publisher or speaker, under 47 U.S. Code § 230, also known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA").
Unlike an Internet Service Provider, a publisher or speaker is not granted the "safe harbor" benefits of Section 230, and may be held liable for defamation or other torts or other liability arising from content published on a platform it owns or manages.
This assertion greatly misconstrues how Section 230 protections work. This would be worth noting in any case, but especially so since it involves Marc Randazza, who has penned screeds pointing out the opposite: moderation efforts by ISPs do not undermine Section 230 protections.
I do delete comments from time to time. If I notice them and they are “excessively violent” or “harassing” or “otherwise objectionable,” I delete them. Why? First, its my blog, so my fucking rules. You have a right to express yourself, but not necessarily here. Second, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can delete one comment and leave 100 filthy, objectionable, harassing, defamatory, nasty, and brutish comments and still not be liable.
Section 230 has been a wonderful thing. It has allowed the Internet to grow, and allowed services like Facebook, Craigslist, Fling.com, Pissedconsumer.com, and any number of other fun websites to exist. It allows me to have a comments section on each post, without worrying about whether I’ll be liable for something posted there. It does foster free speech online. So hooray Section 230.
And the relevant part of Section 230, being brushed aside here to portray Gab's lack of moderation as somehow being essential to its 230 protections:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…
Indeed, it's this very part of CDA 230 that likely will help Google get this lawsuit tossed. Under widely established precedents concerning CDA 230, Google is free to moderate its platform -- in this case, the Android Play Store -- however it likes, without increasing its own liability. To misrepresent CDA 230 by saying that moderation takes away CDA 230 protections... and then ignoring that those same protections probably prevent this lawsuit is just strange.
This is a bizarre lawsuit, to say the least. It almost looks like a proxy salvo in the ongoing war between the "Alt-Right" and the "Establishment Left," which is no longer political parties in power but West Coast tech companies shutting down speech they don't like.
The problem is, Google can legally police speech however it wants. It pays the price in goodwill and public perception, but arbitrary enforcement of app store policies isn't the same thing as antitrust violations, even if the end result is the death of apps and platforms.
At the end of it, we're left with a lawsuit that serves mostly to cater to its base: pissed off Gab users. That's fine, if that's all you want from your legal representation. Google's booting of the Gab app isn't any more correct than this resulting lawsuit. It's a move that caters to its base: progressives who feel speech they don't like shouldn't be allowed anywhere.
Google's motivations for the shutdown are probably as simplistic as they are inexcusable: Google simply didn't want to be known as the place where people could go to get the Gab app. Apple's earlier rejection relegated it to the Android ghetto and Google is engaging in broken windows policing. It's ugly all over and it does nothing to reconcile diametrically-opposed thinking, but it's not anticompetitive. It's just stupid.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alt right, antitrust, apps, cda 230, moderation, play store, section 230
Companies: gab.ai, google, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's going on with Randazza?
I mean, I know the guy supports nearly-unlimited free speech, and I get his support of rather distasteful characters towards that end. I mean, given that he's adopted the use of the label "SJW" for people he disagrees with, maybe his time spent with those distasteful characters has rubbed off a bit, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm more concerned about his seeminglydubious grasp of copyright in the Pepe case, his seemingly dubious grasp of fair use in his DMCA filing, and now his seemingly dubious grasp of Section 230...
Marc used to be, from everything I've heard, an excellent lawyer, and he won a bunch of high-profile First Amendment cases (like the Rightshaven case). I wonder what happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's going on with Randazza?
Marc is actually right about copyright in the Pepe case; you don't OWN the cultural items you create because you can't own an idea. If fans run off and do something you're not happy with it that's unfortunate but copyright law won't save your creation from being repurposed, i.e. used as memes. The purpose of copyright is to limit the right to earn money from distributing copies to the rightsholder — that's all. In the case where someone is using it for a children's book copyright infringement is in play and Furie is in a good position to sue for that as far as I know.
I don't like the alt-right. They are truly awful people. However, the more one tries to shut them up the louder and more insistent they become. The only way to defeat them is with ridicule; meme harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
Tell that to Axanar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
Oh, I agree that Axanar got an unfair shake here.
But you said "copyright law won't save your creation from being repurposed." Not that preventing repurposing is against the spirit of the law (a point I agree with), but that the law itself, as interpreted by the courts, won't protect work from being repurposed.
My point is that the Axanar case shows exactly that: that the law, as it is written, used, and interpreted today, does prevent such repurposing, and that, by presenting it as a slam dunk, Marc Randazza is either bluffing a better hand than he has (always possible), knows something about the case beyond the obvious (which is why I said it's seemingly dubious), or is overconfident in his chances of winning this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
My point is that the Axanar case shows exactly that: that the law, as it is written, used, and interpreted today, does prevent such repurposing
Pardon my pedantry but it doesn't prevent jack. It does, however, mean you could be sued and that the plaintiff is likely to win. People do stuff all the time, it's the ones who are caught who end up in court. I'd be interested to learn how memes could be prevented; yes, I know about the times they've ended up in court but once a meme "escapes into the wild" you can't catch it and lock it back up again. The Streisand Effect takes over, particularly when courts are involved. Using the item without permission in a book is much easier to prosecute. I think that'll win.
...by presenting it as a slam dunk, Marc Randazza is either bluffing a better hand than he has (always possible), knows something about the case beyond the obvious (which is why I said it's seemingly dubious), or is overconfident in his chances of winning this case.
He does both of those things, to be honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
And here, on this site, you're going to argue that lawsuits don't create a chilling effect on the same types of expression that people are sued for?
This is certainly an odd venue in which to make that argument.
I'll concede that nothing will completely stop memes, even specific memes, from spreading. However, in the Pepe case, the content was taken down without even a lawsuit (Randazza was basically saying "I'll hand you your ass if you try to get the money you're threatening to sue for"), which I'd say proves my point better than it proves yours.
Both of those... three things?
Are there two in particular you agree with, or was that meant to encompass all three?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
And here, on this site, you're going to argue that lawsuits don't create a chilling effect on the same types of expression that people are sued for? This is certainly an odd venue in which to make that argument.
I've not seen any examples of meme-making being chilled. As I've already said the one about the Pepe character being used in a book is likely to win — that's flat out infringement.
the content was taken down without even a lawsuit (Randazza was basically saying "I'll hand you your ass if you try to get the money you're threatening to sue for")
That won't stop the meme from spreading even though the content was removed from that site — for now. I'm using Funnyjunk as precedent here; the Oatmeal's creator wasn't happy about fans uploading his stuff there without even linking to his site but ultimately accepted that they're going to do it anyway. That's the trouble with sites based on uploaded content; the only way to proactively prevent them from uploading stuff you don't want there is to approve it prior to uploading. That's impractical. This does not mean it's okay, I'm just saying it happens. So... don't be surprised to see Pepe memes popping up on that site again. It'll happen sooner or later unless the site moderators are pre-approving posts.
Are there two in particular you agree with, or was that meant to encompass all three?
Ah... running out of break time. Yes, it was meant to encompass all three.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
That's not entirely true. There are four prongs to a fair use analysis; profit is only one of them. The lines are blurry and it's difficult to guess where a court will come down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's going on with Randazza?
Creations will be repurposed nonetheless, is what I'm saying here. Fan fiction, parody, memes... whether these are legal or not they still happen. Heck, I've discovered there is such a thing as real person fiction. The implications...!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's going on with Randazza?
Free speech is much more complex than what the a-holes on this site make it out to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Alt-Right Twitter App"???
Calling Gab.Ai an "Alt-Right Twitter App" would be like calling Twitter a "Far Left App".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
It is only this election cycle and the divisiveness of the media that it is equated to hitleresque attitudes.
You are likely an easy target being someone easily told what to think and how to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luxury, genocide, and other diluted terms.
This leads to gays and Jews being lumped in with Neo-Nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luxury, genocide, and other diluted terms.
If they're gays and Jews who are advocating for ethnic cleansing, then they should absolutely be lumped in with neo-Nazis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
Nonsense. The term "alt-right" was originated by Paul Gottfried in 2008 and has been promoted by Richard Spencer since at least 2010. Gottfried has been preaching the superiority of white Christian European culture for decades, and Spencer is a white supremacist who has called for "peaceful ethnic cleansing".
It's only this election cycle that most people have heard the term "alt-right", but it's been associated with white nationalism for as long as it's existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
Do you have a citation for this? The last numbers I can find are from 2014 and Democrats were slightly higher than Republicans in registration.
As has been pointed out already, you're wrong about what is generally categorized as alt-right, but it seems like your claim about Republicans being greater in number isn't necessarily true either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
Source: http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
As for alt-right categorization: I was told I was a white supremacist simply for asking why people dismiss the violence from Antifa, and that I should put my white hood back on and slither back to Alabama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
> I said ‘The plural of anecdote is data” some time in the 1969-70 academic year while teaching a graduate seminar at Stanford. The occasion was a student’s dismissal of a simple factual statement — by another student or me — as a mere anecdote. The quotation was my rejoinder.
Source: http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/29/quotes-uncovered-whats-the-plural-of-anecdote/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
https://medium.com/@wendycockcroft/what-is-a-liberal-socialist-c6de6584f304
http://on-t-i nternet.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/why-we-need-broad-political-spectrum.html
http://38degreesmanchester.o rg.uk/blog/how-identity-politics-and-fake-news-killed-conservatism/
Once we've agreed on what conservative and liberal positions are supposed to be we can get this debate back on track.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
Many people find it difficult if not impossible to admit when they are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As it was from the beginning
ANY group trying to claim any sort of consensus (forget about super majority) is probably completely full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
It is sleazy to make this an alt-right vs left no matter how you look at it. The least the author could have done is claim that it is about protecting the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
(For those unaware, years ago some conservatives got mad at Wikipedia's supposed 'Liberal bias' and decided to start their own alternate wikipedia for conservatives, called Conservapedia. The site was WIDELY mocked across much of the Internet, both for the lack of content, and for just how ridiculously inaccurate many of the articles it had were, especially on articles about anything vaguely political.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
"All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is about 6,000 years old."
-- http://www.conservapedia.com/Age_of_the_Earth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/trump-supporting-startup-ceo-kicked-out-of-y-combinator?u tm_term=.xeNLojVAGe#.wxYlg13nMr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Alt-Right Twitter App"???
At the least it's filled with Twitter-banned self-proclaimed edgelords who love to see anyone rage or flee with terror at the words they type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
open and shut case
As a juror, based on the information "currently available" I would be deciding in favor of gab. Hypocrisy rates pretty high on my list of things to nail folks to the wall over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: open and shut case
And while I'm here, sideloading is ridiculously easy. Anyone who wants Gab can:
Turn on sideloading -> install Gab -> turn off sideloading.
It's Google store; who cares what they ban from it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: open and shut case
On the surface no, but under anti-trust, potentially. The question comes down to, is Twitter in communication with Apple to favor its app over others like it? If yes, then they are party. If no, then the next question moves to why is apple not treating the other app fairly by comparison? Does apple execs have stock in Twitter which causes them to unfairly favor them? Those are questions that need answering in these cases.
"And while I'm here, sideloading is ridiculously easy. Anyone who wants Gab can:
Turn on sideloading -> install Gab -> turn off sideloading.
It's Google store; who cares what they ban from it?"
Yes, you are correct that people can easily overcome some of these limitations. But that would be like saying Walmart can turn away black customers because they can easily go over to Target to buy the same thing.
Why has Apple decided to not enforced its own policy evenly? Is Twitter involved, in any way, with promoting this occurrence? Do executive have ulterior motives?
Twitter may be innocent here, but they can certainly be suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
should we say that same about you and your spelling?
I recognized the mistake and made effort to correct it. Only a juvenile feels the need to troll others over simple mistakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
More like saying that Walmart can refuse to carry a certain item in their store. It's the product being targeted, not the customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
An electronic item is not comparable in the same way as a physical object taking up space on a shelf here.
And we are talking about the rules "Google" has set and the fact that "Google" is not evenly enforcing their own rules. This is the problem. It really does not matter how they pick and choose when they are picking and choosing in contravention of their own rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Report content issues or violations
Here's how you can let us know when you come across inappropriate content, comments, and reviews on Google Play. We take your reports very seriously. Flag apps, games, or music as inappropriate
We review flagged content for hate speech, spam, nudity, malicious behavior, and other violations of our Terms of Service
Clear as day. Users can still side-load. Just like those the "PeeOTUS" blocked on twitter can still sign out to see his tweets.
As I said - welcome to the new normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
that is not the problem here, and you are too stupid to understand that!
The problem is not specifically who gets rejected or not, but the reasons they got rejected. The problem is Googles consistency in enforcing the rules. Inconsistently enforcing your own rules potentially places you into legal hot water because you can now be made to appear that you are engaging in anti-trust behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Please, explain how "not serving black customers" is more comparable to "not carrying a particular product in your electronic store" than "not carrying a particular product in your physical store" would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Yes, you are correct that people can easily overcome some of these limitations. But that would be like saying Walmart can turn away black customers because they can easily go over to Target to buy the same thing.
Or like a same-sex couple being told they can get their cake or marriage license somewhere else.
That's the problem when you mix your personal morals into business isn't it? Sooner or later you'll find yourself on the other end of it, whining and complaining...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Slight correction: No class should need to be protected. In a perfect world, we would not need anti-discrimination ordinances. But this is not a perfect world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
If you do think protected classes are a good idea, political ideologies should be protected at least as much as religion, because politics is of such importance to a remotely free society.
However, IMO a better and fairer solution to protected classes in business and employment would be a requirement that any entity doing business (as defined for tax etc.) and which holds itself out to the public as engaging in some business (to exclude internal sub-companies which only do business with their controllers) may decline to do business with any member of the public only on demonstrable business grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: open and shut case
The fact that you retreat to a legalism just demonstrates that you don't really value the underlying principle (namely liberty).
Your reaction is why we need to have laws and governments (and associated abuses) in place to maintain order and protect rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: open and shut case
What aspect of a political belief raises it to the same level as, say, a system of religion or the ethnicity of a person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
And what is it about a system of religion (again, a matter of choice and belief) that distinguishes it from any other belief system in this regard? In philosophical and principle terms, I mean, not anything based in "because the people who wrote the rules said it should be that way".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Religion involves faith and personal spirituality—a belief, or lack thereof, in something bigger than oneself. Whether someone believe in Jesus Christ, Mohammed, the Norse gods, a general sense of The Divine, or no supernatural force/deity at all, their religious beliefs stem from a personal search for their own spiritual truth. In an ideal world, a religious belief, regardless of whether it is theistic or atheistic, would neither govern the rule of law nor become prey to legal discrimination. Religion may not be an immutable trait, but it is as personal to a given individual as their ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The government should never be in the business of declaring a specific belief or an entire belief system as “invalid”.
Political beliefs, by contrast, function near-entirely within the secular. They require not faith or spirituality, but facts, data, and logic. And while religious beliefs often play a role in someone's political beliefs, that someone could still hold a political position that contradicts their religion. Anyone can abandon or change their political and ethical beliefs if those beliefs—or the person holding them—seem obsolete or faulty; look at the decade-long societal shift in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage as proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
This is a different situation. If we want to compare apples to apples, it would be that some gays are allowed to get married but others are not. Which comes back to the same question, why does this gay couple get a license but not the other? In the case here, some social applications are allowed to remain even when they are breaking the rules while others are blocked for breaking those rules.
"That's the problem when you mix your personal morals into business isn't it? Sooner or later you'll find yourself on the other end of it, whining and complaining..."
You are correct, but this applies to EVERYONE. No one is an exception to this rule. You are every bit as hateful, full of piss and vinegar as a racist homophobic dirt bag. The only difference is that you are on the other side of the fence being every bit the bitch they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
The only difference is that you are on the other side of the fence being every bit the bitch they are.
The only difference is Google hasn't pulled the "but it offends my god" defense. Yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
I doubt even Google’s higher-ups know what truly offends Skynet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: open and shut case
I bet when the first car was used to rob some place the establishment wanted to ban cars because they could easily outrun horses.
Or once encryption was used by terrorists the establishment tried to make it out as a tool or the alt-right terrorist. Or alt-left, depending on your point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
It's a great way to distinguish modern liberals from classical ones. You can disconnect the fascism and communism.
It shouldn't be up to those of us pushed past the other side of the center to distinguish ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Read this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DwJBWyyJycnPHKFlyEE6XWCghMYtOliu1P_uaODOA0M/edit#gid=1100033 226
That's where traditional left/right politics is.
As for Antifa, they're a) not organised b) mostly anarchists and c) their violence is unacceptable because violence is unacceptable, whoever does it.
Now kindly drop the whataboutism and stop pretending that far right political positions are maintstream. They're not.
And stop pretending that mainstream left wing positions are extreme. They're not. Single payer wouldn't end the world; it'd solve your healthcare delivery problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: open and shut case
> Turn on sideloading -> install Gab -> turn off sideloading
You vastly overestimate the average smartphone user
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
The only part of the complaint that really stands a chance is the fact that Google has effectively made the Play Store the only way to get apps for the vast majority of people. Forcing the sideloading of apps effectively bans them from 99+% of the market, and that's where Google's anticompetitive/monopolistic risk lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: open and shut case
Well what?
That's how installing a downloaded app works in Windows and macOS, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: open and shut case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: open and shut case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
But if you think they are all "made up" then go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: open and shut case
As a juror, based on the information "currently available" I would be deciding in favor of gab. Hypocrisy rates pretty high on my list of things to nail folks to the wall over.
In which case you are someone who should be struck from any jury pool you find yourself in. Hypocrisy is not against the law, and using the power granted to you by the legal system to punish someone for doing something you don't like but which isn't illegal would be a blatant abuse of power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's now lost any respect I had for him. This lawsuit is baseless. It's like trying to sue Apple because they refused to approve your app for the App Store.
LOLS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Joo_Janta_200_Super-Chromatic_Peril_Sensitive_Sunglass es
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can sort of see the logic
So if Comcast were to get angry with Techdirt's coverage and block the domain from their DNS servers, a huge portion of the population would not be able to access the site. Due to the dominant market position, this would be seen unfavorably by most people, and perhaps the law. One could also (even somewhat convincingly) argue that Comcast has its own 1st Amendment right to block and display whatever it wants, but that sounds somewhat less credible from Net Neutrality supporters.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's pretty close. Google and Apple have both blocked something they disagree with, and as the dominant market access points, they bear a bit more burden to make sure they have a damned good reason for doing so.
Standards being inconsistently applied is a pretty good definition of arbitrary discrimination. If this were done at the website level rather than the app level, I feel like your position would be different, here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can sort of see the logic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can sort of see the logic
"App neutrality" is not a movement, at least not yet. Is it enough that Google allow people to load applications from outside the store? That's a defense Apple don't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can sort of see the logic
No, it really, really isn't.
Android users can install apps from sources other than the Play Store.
As is routinely noted here at Techdirt, most people in America can't just go use another ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can sort of see the logic
I happen to use Google's servers [ducks].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can sort of see the logic
Wait what?
If you think a typical end user can figure out how to change DNS settings, you haven't talked to many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheezus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
“Alt-right” is a “buzzword” adopted by the people who actually call themselves that. The Gab app was developed by—and ostensibly for—people who either embrace the label “alt-right” or just accept it as a label for their specific sociopolitical community. And while an implicit judgment of “alt-right” ideologies may run through the article, the author did not explicitly condemn—or condone—the speech of anyone in that community. If anything, the article shows more sympathy for the “alt-right”/Gab community and their arguments than an otherwise “left-leaning” blog ever would.
Also, two addendums: One Antifa logo is a flag, but a flag is not necessarily an Antifa logo; and find a better argument than whining about people you hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cheezus
...and applied by liberal media to anyone they don't like regardless of whether or not those people actually identify with the alt-right themselves.
Like anything, it's a completely diluted and meaningless term now because it's been abused so hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cheezus
Hmmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cheezus
I could say the same for “SJW”, but you probably have a thrilling, compelling, altogether impeccable argument for why I am wrong.
Do take the time to share it. You know, if you have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
Sorta like how they called themselves "teabaggers" ...
until they found out what it means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cheezus
"The irony is strong in this one."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cheezus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#.22Teabagger.22 has a brief commentary on the subject, but not much detail. I haven't found a better source in shallow searching thus far.
I do remember TV coverage of someone wearing a wide-brimmed hat with tea bags hanging from the rim, espousing something like the positions of what would later come to be called the Tea Party; it is my understanding that this was done on purpose by the people involved in the original gatherings, to invoke the historical memory of the Boston Tea Party, and that it is this practice that gave is the movement its name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
It reminds me of a time, long ago, when a certain group of Internet commenters would use the buzzword "SJW" for anything they didn't agree with.
Happily, that time has passed, as I'm sure that it will for "alt-right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
""Alt-right" is the buzzword right now that SJWs use for anything they don't agree with..."
Bit like the term "SJW" right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cheezus
"SJW", on the other hand, is a serious term used by serious people who are very very serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How ironic!
How ironic that the alt-right, who would certainly argue that:
would now whine like a bitch when they are denied a platform to spew their nonsense.
Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
I guess you'll have to do whatever the same-sex couple were supposed to do...go fuck yourself and find somewhere else to do business, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How ironic!
"A baker need not put aside their morals to bake a cake for a same-sex couple"
I am okay with this and Google's decision, provided that the rules state that but they don't, that is the problem here. The rules do not state that certain applications are allowed to breach these rules. They are written in such a way as to denote that they apply to everything.
If a bakery had an "all customers welcome sign" in their window then I would rule against a bakery that denied a cake to a gay couple as well. Most establishments have a sign saying they reserve the right to refuse service without much qualifier, so if they can refuse you service for not wearing a shirt, then they can refuse you service for being gay. Not saying it the right thing to do, but their legal right to do so per the 1st and freedom of practice of religion.
"that Hobby Lobby should not have to put aside their morals and include birth control in their health care plans"
This pretty much is the same as the first and much for the same reasons. I also do not agree with government mandated you must pay for anything so I would not agree with forcing an insurance company to even pay for your Tylenol. If you don't like that, then get a different provider.
"or that some moron who was married several times can object to issuing a marriage license to same-sex couple"
This one I do agree with you on. She had no business working for the government while simultaneously trying to enforce her beliefs on anyone. If the government says that gays can marry then she should have done her fucking job and issued the licenses provided they followed all the legal requirements.
"Karma's a bitch, isn't it?"
Did you say that to all of the people where this goes the other way? I am sure that if you receive a backlash on this you would not be screaming that karma is a bitch would you?
"I guess you'll have to do whatever the same-sex couple were supposed to do...go fuck yourself and find somewhere else to do business, right?"
More of that dissonance... it's okay for YOU to run off people you disagree with but it is NOT okay for people that disagree with you to run YOU off, now is it? funny, would karma be a bitch, or your bitch, if someone comes after you for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How ironic!
More of that dissonance... it's okay for YOU to run off people you disagree with but it is NOT okay for people that disagree with you to run YOU off, now is it?
Oh come on now, with all that whining.
No one's running anyone off. Those who want Gab just have to side-load it. Just because the majority of users have no idea what that means isn't really germane to the conversation isn't it?
It isn't as if the bakery was obligated to offer the same-sex couple instructions on where they could get a cake. Nor was the civil servant obligated to tell the same-sex couple how to actually get a marriage license, since she wasn't going to do her job.
Corporations have feelings too. From the lowly baker, to the mouth breathing civil servant, to the mighty Google.
So yeah, they can fuck off, Google "side-load" and hope for the best. Sorry if you think that's "dissonance" - you might want to look up the term. This is the new normal.
Buckle up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How ironic!
We make a nice Whiny Symphonic then eh?
"No one's running anyone off. Those who want Gab just have to side-load it. Just because the majority of users have no idea what that means isn't really germane to the conversation isn't it? "
Again, that is not the point here. The point is that the rules set by the App Store are not being followed. I am okay with Google running them off provided that it is done in compliance with the rules they have set forth and that those rules are applied evenly across all other players.
"It isn't as if the bakery was obligated to offer the same-sex couple instructions on where they could get a cake."
True, they are not obligated to do anything, but the problem would be the same for the bakery, because in this case they would have been baking cakes for other same-sex couples but just not this one. So why do the others get a cake but not these?
"Nor was the civil servant obligated to tell the same-sex couple how to actually get a marriage license, since she wasn't going to do her job."
Actually, the civil servant is obligated to tell the same-sex couple how to get a marriage license to the best of her ability. If that clerk did not want to issue same-sex licenses then they needed to quit their job so someone else who would do it could have the job instead.
"Corporations have feelings too. From the lowly baker, to the mouth breathing civil servant, to the mighty Google."
Corporations does not have feelings, but the people that comprise it do. They do not lose rights just because they are a business. The constitution does not state that you have these basic rights unless you are running a business.
"So yeah, they can fuck off, Google "side-load" and hope for the best. Sorry if you think that's "dissonance" - you might want to look up the term. This is the new normal."
That part is not the dissonance, the part where you advance the notion that because it is possible to side load that the App Store should walk away free and clear.. that is the dissonance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How ironic!
If that clerk did not want to issue same-sex licenses then they needed to quit their job so someone else who would do it could have the job instead.
But we both know that's not how things shook out. Which is exactly why I have no sympathy for Gab or the tards who use it.
Corporations does not have feelings, but the people that comprise it do. They do not lose rights just because they are a business.
Right - Google is comprised of people as well.
That part is not the dissonance, the part where you advance the notion that because it is possible to side load that the App Store should walk away free and clear..
Perhaps that novel little tidbit will be tested in court with the PeeOTUS's twitter account. Until then, I see no difference.
Sad day for the alt-right. You truly do reap what you sow, amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How ironic!
That is correct, Trumps twitter account is definitely getting away with more that what other normal accounts get away with. And I am in favor of legal sanctions against Twitter for that as well. They either enforce their rules evenly or they get into trouble.
"Sad day for the alt-right. You truly do reap what you sow, amirite?"
This is a universal truth. The piss and vinegar of the Alt-Right is not earning them a good rep the same way that the piss and vinegar of BLM is not earning them a good rep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How ironic!
They can only discriminate against queer people in cities, counties, and states where the law does not say it is illegal—which holds true in far more places within the US than even you might be comfortable with. And no federal law exists that outlaws anti-queer discrimination in public accomodations.
What happens if the only other providers carry with them an astronomical price tag because an employer refuses to sign off on it?
The people who “disagree” with people like me—queer people, that is—do so because I am queer; they want me either pushed out of society, in jail, or six feet under. I disagree with those people because I want them to treat me like a human being and respect my civil rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How ironic!
The baker is just providing a good to some person. They aren't being forced to cook shell fish, put cheese on meat, or handle pork.
They just don't like the customer. Their inclination to discriminate isn't even supported by doctrine.
The civil servant is yet another morally different situation that shouldn't be lumped in with the others. Evaluating that situation requires different criteria from the others because it's morally distinct.
These little details matter, regardless of which way you swing on any of these situations. Lumping them together is dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How ironic!
Hobby Lobby and the Baker are two different situations. They are different because there's actual ecclesiastical authority to back up Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby could also argue that it was being forced to engage in the practice in question.
Erm, no.
There's nothing in the Bible to stop us using artificial contraception. That some hard-right Evangelicals have got on board with Roman Catholic doctrines is the problem [disclosure: I'm Protestant].
Again, Single Payer would solve the problem by getting your employers out of your healthcare. They shouldn't be involved with it in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How ironic!
There is the story of Onan.
I'm not saying that I agree with their arguments, but to say that they're completely without Biblical support is inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A feedback loop has been created. The label is used by one person or publication. Then without critical thought picked up and carrier forward spreading the label.
In the specific case of gab.ai I see nothing to suggest it's a twitter platform for only Nazi's and the Daily Stormer. May as well label the internet alt-right for also hosting a tiny minority and pull the plug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Much like Voat was created as a reaction to moderation by Reddit staff, Gab was created specifically as a reaction to moderation by Twitter staff. In both cases, that moderation seemed to target members of the so-called “alt-right”, who fled to those spin-off services for “free speech” reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mention a feedback loop and then sort of describe what you mean but that is not feedback at all, it is simple repetition not unlike the telephone game which has no feedback at all - sorta the point of the game actually.
It is sad you feel persecuted but that may be caused by you, not others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it interesting how some folk think that they are special and therefore demand their "contribution" be broadcast upon any platform they want it broadcast from regardless of the policy of said platform. Using inconsistencies in the implementation of said policy to wedge your whatever into the platform ... is weak sauce.
What is even more interesting are those who claim "freedom of Speech" in their attempts to force their opinions upon non government business - because their "rights" - apparently their do not understand their constitutional rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stupid like you does not ever end does it? That is not the problem here. The problem is Google arbitrarily enforcing policy, which is illegal and can get them into legal hot water.
You cannot make a rule that says, we will ban anyone promoting hate speech or allowing porn on their platform and then allow a platform to do just those exact things while telling another platform that they can't and then banning them. That is the problem here. Either the App store allows them both or it bans them both until they adhere to the requirements set forth in the terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cite the law that says so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How many posters here are stupid so far? Is it only those with whom you disagree? Is it possible for someone that you do agree with .. to also be stupid?
Inquiring minds want to know ... but that is not the problem here (as you astutely pointed out) - LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem is Google arbitrarily enforcing policy, which is illegal and can get them into legal hot water.
Pretty much all of the case law on CDA 230 says you're completely and totally wrong. CDA 230(c)(2) says that a company shall not be held liable for "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
The only way around that is to climb the very, very, very difficult mountain of arguing that Google's actions here are not "taken in good faith." And I'm unaware of a single CDA 230 case that has successfully argued that such actions were not taken in good faith, and I see almost no path to argue here that the actions were not taken in good faith, despite what's claimed in the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My guess: The argument hinges on how Twitter contains all kinds of “objectionable” material and remains on the App Store, while Gab contains similarly “objectionable” material but got the boot. The real argument, then, hinges on how Gab admins/mods/higher-ups moderated their service as opposed to how Twitter’s team moderates their service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My guess: The argument hinges on how Twitter contains all kinds of “objectionable” material and remains on the App Store, while Gab contains similarly “objectionable” material but got the boot. The real argument, then, hinges on how Gab admins/mods/higher-ups moderated their service as opposed to how Twitter’s team moderates their service.
That's meaningless for a CDA 230 analysis, honestly. CDA 230 is clear that the platforms get to decide. It says nothing about treating different users differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I figured as much, but it is nice to have someone more knowledgable about 230 explain it for all to see. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should be corrected.
One factor that the article misses is that Google by now is likely a monopolist and is using that monopoly power to establish a monopoly in other markets.
Aside from gab being right in objecting to excessive use of power to stifle speech I think they are not really doing this to win. They are doing it to bring attention to the fact that a monopolist is abusing it's power.
It might behoove Mike to go over the history of section 230 protection erosion if the party seeking coverage is actively engaged in censorship. Do they loose 230 protection if they attempt to censor (unless it is for some illegal act).
If we can't be assured that a monopolist will not abuse their position then the government could simply use them as a proxy to stifle free speech with proxied censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might behoove Mike to go over the history of section 230 protection erosion if the party seeking coverage is actively engaged in censorship. Do they loose 230 protection if they attempt to censor (unless it is for some illegal act).
No, CDA 230 literally says the exact opposite. The whole point of CDA 230 was to encourage sites to take down content they didn't like, and says that you get NO CIVIL LIABILITY (an absolute immunity) for the choices you make in moderating content on your platform.
So, the fact that the party is using it to take down legal content does not do away with 230 protections. It's the point of 230 protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I worry about the government pulling a McCarthyist tactic (a red scare) where anything alt-this or that can be censored at the government's behest. This makes private censorship very dangerous and section 230 would protect the private entity and cover up government proxy'd censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is exactly what has been happening since August 2014. All of the online censorship has been driven from the top down by the billionaires running the corporates. The billionaires are taking orders from their governments, and the Western governments are taking orders from the Muslim governments. That's why there was such a shitstorm about Qatar. They were involved in this, but so were several others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have to say, I was hesitant at first to accept your argument for why the headline and argument were so flawed, to the point that the entire article is invalid, yet your detailed and well presented case for this has certainly convinced me.
Truly, your mastery of the written word is without peer, and your ability to present your case and back it up with supporting arguments and evidence is enough to bring those who you rightly chastise to their knees in defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It didn't last long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]