The Hypocrisy of the West - Angry Syrians rejected by Apple
fredericjacobs.com
fredericjacobs.com
On top of that, trying to draw parallels between Angry Syrians and Mark Fiore's application seems completely absurd. Political satire and stereotyping an entire populous are fairly distinct things. One can be funny, the other tends to just be racist.
Traditionally, the courts have ruled that private corporations have no responsibility towards free speech. But in the world of the internet most online forums are owned by private firms unlike the off-line world where you are protest on any street and be reasonably sure that your rights to free speech are protected by the constitution.
As more and more activism moves online we see a definite need for corporations to have some tolerance towards free speech if not legally than morally.
I think what we need is a charter that tech companies sign that say that they will support free speech to a reasonable degree and defines what the limitations will be.
We should absolutely pressure and shame companies who make those questionable decisions and unnecessarily restrict their customers but more importantly we need to stick to open networks where news and information flow independently through different providers. Where no single entity or even a group of powerful entities can censor anything. We need Facebook, Google+, Twitter, we need independent "appstores" (a definite advantage of Android platform), we need niche sites like HN, we need independent blogs hosted by geeks in their bedrooms, and even Tor. Homogeneity is recipe for a catastrophic failure.
>You can start your own website today much easier than it was to publish a pamphlet in the 18th century.
Then you go on to say,
>We need Facebook, Google+, Twitter, we need independent "appstores" (a definite advantage of Android platform), we need niche sites like HN,
These are not logically consistent. Do we need blogs or do we need big companies to allow big free speech? Are you saying we need both? But if we hypothetically get big companies legally responsible for allowing free speech why will be need independent sites? I am not sure what you mean here.
>We should absolutely pressure and shame companies who make those questionable decisions and unnecessarily restrict their customers but more importantly we need to stick to open networks where news and information flow independently through different providers.
Sure thing. Pressure them, but be aware that they are not _legally_ responsible for anything. That is why I said that we need a charter for all companies to sign so there is a framework where the law fails.
We are saying the same thing (at least from the way I understand, yours is not a clear argument to understand).
I am proposing a concrete action items to the premises you are making. I am not sure why you are downvoting/hating.
Good. There is no contradiction and no need for them to be legally obligated to allow anything. We need everything from large operators and their more or less regulated facebooks to 4chans and Tor hidden services. It's not as if Internet is too small for them.
This way everyone can find a service they feel comfortable with while also no information can be effectively censored because of the sheer number and diversity of channels through which it can be disseminated.
You are proposing to fight (private) regulation with more (governmental) regulation. This is no way to protect our freedoms. It will just lead to further centralisation of power over information.
In the US, free speech only applies to the government infringing on your ability to speak, not on private corporations.
The idea of a charter is naive, and just like Google's "Don't be evil" mantra, a PR mistake waiting to happen.