Private companies don’t have to host them. And if enough people organize and compel them not to host them, they will drop them. I am not arguing that private companies should be forced to take on the role of a “public square”. But I do think the lack of true “public square” accessibility on the internet is something we, as a society that values free speech, should be concerned with. I’m not proposing any solutions here. It’s just something I’m thinking about with the current crackdown.
What I'm saying is people have to know how to type in Twitter's URL to use it. People have to know how to go to App Store and find Twitter to download ... or click the download button from Twitter's website. That's the extent of the effort your grandma would need to bypass Parler's ban. And simpler by calling Black Rifle Phone Company to mail her a pre-installed phone. Spoiler yeah, that's my point. She still wouldn't be able to take out my appendix, but people would categorize her the same as real surgeons who do. difference is, you know you don't have a CompSci degree nor been coding commercial software for 30 yrs. So just don't imply you know what I'm talking about. k
You are contradicting yourself here, so it's not the job of private companies to take on the role of a public square but you are concerned with the action by these companies? The internet is the public square. Let's not forget your original post where you were calling out these private companies, now you are backtracking.
It isn’t a contradiction, unless you are assuming that all access and use of the Internet must be controlled by private companies.
I certainly didn’t mean to get into a programmer dick size contest here. You win. Yours is huge and your coding harem is massive, beautiful and satisfied. But I still have a programming penis too and know how to use it however tiny and inefficient it might be comparatively. I have a BS in IT from UMass. I had to take programming classes to attain it. But I did choose it over compsci expressly because I don’t like programming. And after doing it at work I liked it even less. Just not my jam. But I do understand what you’re saying. If hitting a url to install is all it takes, I can see a grassroots word of mouth campaign working to some extent. The biggest caveat would be if the app needs an update every time the os updates or the official app updates, that’s going to turn a lot of casual users off.
absolutely. btw: maybe I shouldn't have said "sideloading", as it has connotations. I did because ppl would know some things are possible to perform physical bypasses or system bypasses. What I should have said is just more complicated to explain, but it is very simple to the user.
Perhaps I misunderstood the alleged contradiction. I never wrote that private companies should be required to protect free speech of users. The lack of space that is easily accessible on the Internet for exercising protected free speech is a general concern — that doesn’t imply that private companies shouldn’t be allowed to exercise their own rights to control content on their platforms.
if you have a link or a term, I would love to read up more on it ... I’m still stuck on the default security policy as a hindrance to easy installing of an app that’s not “approved” (meaning not available through default App Store).
I included that as equal simplicity. I also said same amount of effort as using the App Store. there are workarounds that would do one, and workarounds that would do the other Spoiler sigh, I said there are ways to sideload code to make it "very easy" ... you then announced your resume to say it's not easy. And I said "you aren't a developer who knows what sideloading actually does" to continue saying there's a simple-to-the-user way did you take offense to that? I guess so, because you then pulled out your programming penis.
Yes, private companies can eliminate users and apps as they see fit. It isn't a violation of constitutional free speech. It does limit the speech of these people. They are denied to access to communication methods available to most other people. I am basically okay with the idea that they were warned and given opportunities to comply. They didn't do so. At the same time, I would prefer everyone have access. I think it's a letter of the law interfering with the spirit of the law situation. I prefer that Trump still have access to his social media accounts even if I understand why he doesn't. I understand that his right to use those social mediums platform is not a protected right. I am on board with the ACLU on this one. https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-couns...itter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248
I guess the parler ceo had to change his statement to align with the snowflake "cancel culture" and "big tech is any right wing" story...
One of the basic things my work involves is creating an App Installer for Fortune 100s clients. It's circumvents the AppStore. For awhile now, Apple has supported downloading applications that are not in the AppStore and without Jailbreaking or computers. This is because Fortune 100s with their own apps, like what I write, actually DO NOT want to be in the AppStore. The common approach that Apple supports is merely downloading the enterprise app from a browser link and "signing" it, ie trusting it. Rolling out a private App (ie outside the AppStore) and teaching everyone in a company to Trust it via Apple's instructions is not that hard. Once that first App is "in" and "trusted", it can download any app binary image (an IPA) as if it was the AppStore, without further need to "trust" subsequent apps. So, what we routinely do is create an App Installer for Enterprises ... like their own AppStore. That way the 4 (or so) steps in the iPhone Settings to Sign/Trust Enterprise Apps need only be done once. (For consumer types of App Loaders, look up AppCake. That might be what you want.) And, there is even a way to get around the "signing" "trusting" that initial app. Yes, some secretaries at Fortune 100s whine about following Apple's instructions for trusting their enterprise app loader, so we have a trick to get around that, even. trust me, a non-AppStore IPA binary can be installed with the same steps as any App so, that's one way, which, imo, is the easiet wrt new code. Another way is to convert Parler to a Web App that has a UX with Mobile Device Responsiveness. also, very easy for the users, but maybe a month to rewrite and test.