TechPulseTechPulse
Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

33% Positive

Analyzed from 389 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#facebook#apple#app#government#third#anyone#removed#content#defendants#right

Discussion (2 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

hexage1814•about 4 hours ago
Generally speaking, unless there was a sort of constitutional right of people submitting apps to app stores, I find it somewhat complicated, because the multibillion dollar corporation could always argue, "Oh, we didn't remove it because the government asked us to gain some favor with the current administration, but rather because it violated our user policy." Like, you can very, very, very easily hide behind a private corporation deciding to exercise its power to decide such an app violated their internal user policy.

Hell, even if there were a public register of Trump asking them to remove an app, you could always argue, "Well, anyone, regardless of them being president of the United States or not, is free to ask for an app to be removed; anyone could theoretically demand and protest anything, and Trump, as any citizen, has this right" (not saying I agree with that thesis, to be clear).

But I do believe the whole point highlights a bigger problem: a negative relation between big corporations and the government. I'm not sure how anyone would solve it. Maybe by sidelining the whole issue by making it easier for people to install apps from whatever the fuck they want, without the app stores gatekeeping what software one installs on their device.

But if anything, we are moving far away from that, even on Android

eesmith•about 2 hours ago
The world is complicated. That's why there is a legal system.

In this case, the judge explicitly considered and rejected the applicability of every one of your points, writing at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.49... :

"The Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that their injuries are likely traceable to government-coerced enforcement for the following reasons. First, Facebook had previously reviewed the Chicagoland group, and Apple had previously reviewed Eyes Up. In both cases, Facebook and Apple had determined that the content met their requirements. Second, Facebook and Apple changed their positions and removed the content immediately after Defendants contacted them about it. And third, Defendants made public statements taking credit for the fact that Facebook and Apple had removed the content."

"Regarding the third element, and as alleged, Defendants’ actions can be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action against Facebook and Apple in order to suppress Plaintiffs’ speech" ...

"As the Seventh Circuit found in Backpage, although the defendant lacked “authority to take any official action” and did not “directly threaten the [third parties] with an investigation or prosecution,” the defendant still engaged in coercion where he “demand[ed]” rather than “request[ed],” and where he “intimat[ed]” that the third parties “may be criminal accomplices” if they failed to comply. Id. at 232, 236. Here, Bondi and Noem did exactly that. They reached out to Facebook and Apple and demanded, rather than requested, that Facebook and Apple censor Plaintiff’s speech."