Forum: Author Hangout

I always thought of it being said to children not adults

And to your female dog when she didn't pee in the house.

But, seriously, it depends on who is saying it. I can see a woman saying "good girl" to her friend when she finally stood up to her abusive husband.

Yes, but we aren't talking about friends, but a sports team manager talking to a journalist.

But what about in the context of a SOL story?

AJ

I always thought of it being said to children not adults

And to cats, when they shit in the neighbours' gardens rather than ones own ;-)

AJ

I mean, if I walked up to a thirty-something man and "praised" whatever he did by calling him a "Good Boy", I don't think that would go well for me either.

Rodgers claims he does that. In the context of football ('the boys done good'), it's credible.

AJ

How many over?

Who knows? Advanced Search stops counting at 1000.

AJ

over 1000 SOL stories contain the string 'good girl'

1000 for "good boy" too

Allegedly the 'Done' was a pronouncement that Brendan Rodgers was prematurely terminating the interview because he didn't want to answer an awkward question, and 'Good girl, well done' was being polite as he did a runner.

AJ

You have NO right to not be offended.
I have NO right to object to your response.

Neither individual has a right to silence the other person, either by shouting them down or bringing force to bear (i.e. deplatforming, unperssoning, etc).

Note that this does not to apply actual threats or inciting imminent violence.

you haven't convinced me that having a platform is a right, which would be necessary for deplatforming to be rights-violating.

My point wasn't that a platform cannot police itself, but lobbying or mob action to intimidate or force the platform to limit other's speech is no more acceptable than banning 'castigation'.

TLDR (because this is long - and I cut more than I left): I disagree, and I think part of why I disagree is that highly disparate things are conflated at multiple points in the statement.

lobbying or mob action to intimidate or force

This is conflating an enormous range of behaviors, far too many for a reasonable generalization.

Boycotting, for instance, is IMHO always acceptable, as are complaints, open letters, bad reviews on review sites, etc. Why should anyone be frowned upon for refusing to use a service they find objectionable or encouraging others to also not use it? No business has a 'right' to take actions with no fear of loss of business, complaints, public rebuke, boycotts, etc.

Threats of force or violence are (again, and obviously, IMHO) unacceptable. "We're coming for you with torches and pitchforks!" or "Second amendment solutions!" are threats.

Mob action depends on what the mob does. If the mob refuses to buy, fine, that's their right. If the mob threatens violence, that's not acceptable.

One may hold as a personal credo '"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', and that's obviously more than fine - laudable, perhaps, even - but it's not a legal, ethical, or moral obligation for anyone. Complaints, boycotts, public shaming, and so forth are expected potential consequences for hosting 'unpopular' speech. Use of force (violence, laws, etc) is not.

Making unpopular speech consequence-free has consequences itself, because it removes the free speech of those who find the speech objectionable to object to it. And any consequence may potentially amount to 'lobbying [...] to limit other's speech'.

I also see a problem with conflating 'banning "castigation"' and 'lobbying'. Claiming one does not have the right to 'castigate' others is force, an active denial of free speech in all cases. 'Lobbying' is persuasion, a request for someone else to remove free speech on a single platform. Using force to keep people everywhere from doing something regardless of platform is considerably less acceptable than peaceful lobbying to encourage others to limit use of their platforms.

Using force to keep people everywhere from doing something regardless of platform is considerably less acceptable than peaceful lobbying to encourage others to limit use of their platforms.

Your definution of force and mine do not mesh, which is he source of the disagreement (IMHO). One can use force without using violence, and force does not have to be physical. Intimidaiton with an intent to remove someone from the public square is an improper use of force.

Do you count as force protesters putting their bodies in the way to physically obstruct people from going about their business?

AJ

Can you provide examples of what you're worried about because I have no idea if you're thinking of like, Kiwifarms harassing people off the internet or Kiwifarms getting kicked off cloudflare on account of their harassing people off the internet.

Kiwi Farms, the Web's Biggest Community of Stalkers

Why anti-trans web forum Kiwi Farms was erased from the internet

KiwiFarms used force (threats, intimidation, doxing) and was dropped for TOS violations. That was a proper action.

TLDR: The 'right to free speech' necessarily includes the right to protest others' free speech, including taking business away from and/or denouncing those who host 'offending' speech, denouncing the 'offending' speech, etc. As long as they use neither violence nor 'force' at the governmental level, that's their right. Denying that right is an actual preemptive denial of free speech in the name of 'protecting free speech.' Those who host the 'offensive' content can decide to keep hosting it or not based on their own priorities. Hosting gives one the right to decide what to accept and what not to accept, and a hosting platform must take public acceptance into account when deciding what to host.

TLDR2: If you are saying you personally disagree with people attempting to 'remove someone from [part of] the public square', no objection (though I think it's somewhat self-defeating by nature), but the words are still much too 'slippery' for me to be sure. I add '[part of]' because no one but the government or those using violence or the threat of violence can remove someone from the true 'public square'. Private entities are not 'the public square' and never have been.

TLDR3: The debate here is (IMHO) philosophical. I don't agree with 'deplatforming' in general and I think it's a bad idea in many cases. Any attempt to 'ban' it is a cure worse than the disease, though, and many of the steps that can lead to 'deplatforming' are not improper. Disliking certain content is not improper. Choosing to take your attention somewhere that content does not appear is not improper. Encouraging your friends to take their attention elsewhere is not improper. Telling the publisher why you are no longer reading them is not improper. Encouraging others to tell the publisher the same thing is not improper. Encouraging others to cease supporting the publisher is not improper. None of those are 'violence' or 'force', even if they add up to a risk of significant loss of business. They may be 'intimidation', but not improper intimidation.

Your definition of force and mine do not mesh, which is the source of the disagreement (IMHO). One can use force without using violence, and force does not have to be physical. Intimidation [...]

I see your point, but I also think it's just shifting the word in contention. What does 'intimidation' mean in this context? I would normally see that as a physical / violent threat.

If your use of 'force' or 'intimidation' includes boycotting or other threats of loss of readership/business/etc, I disagree. Boycotting is not 'force' in that sense, and (if it's 'intimidation') it's acceptable (even necessary) 'intimidation.' Denying the right to boycott is a direct abridgement of free speech.

I'm also not sure what 'improper' means in context.
Obviously, one has the perfect right to say to those who promote boycotts, urge the restriction of certain content, etc that they are behaving 'improperly' and should not do so. But it's their right to decide whether or not they agree. If 'improper' is a statement of disapproval, that's a personal moral standard. If 'improper' means that certain behaviors should not be 'permitted', though, that's an invitation to use force to suppress those behaviors.

I'm really not sure how it could be otherwise. Platform R hosts content S, disliked by many people T. Do the T's need to keep using R even though they dislike R's refusal to remove S? Are they required to merely silently stop using R and not complain? If they complain and get no resolution, are they then required to silently step away?

Once the T's start complaining, you have a 'loss of business' scenario, even if each is simply making a personal decision. If there are millions of T's, R faces a significant loss of business even if the T's are completely enjoined from coordinating from each other.

And, if we assume somehow the T's both cannot coordinate with each other, nor can they tell R why they are upset (because that might 'intimidate' R), they will still cease using R. In that case, R loses business with no idea why, which eventually might lead to them banning random things in hopes of finding the problem, or might leave to their shutting down.

Of course, in reality the T's will talk with each other and complain about R, and some will suggest to others that they drop R, quite possibly with a letter-writing campaign to make sure R knows why all of these people are quitting.

I don't see any 'improper use of force' here. Everyone is acting of their own free will, non-coerced. The alternatives (T's cannot complain, T's must continue to use R, T's cannot coordinate, etc) all involve actual denial of free speech / freedom of association.

Denying people the right to disassociate with publishers of content they find 'offensive' is an improper use of force, and so is denying them the right to encourage others to disassociate with those publishers.

Perhaps some of the disagreement is your phrase 'remove someone from the public square'. No private business can do that - that's a governmental thing. With very specific limited exceptions, no one has the right to be published by any particular publisher or by even one publisher. This goes back to the foundations of 'free speech' and hasn't changed. One has the right to stand in the public square and shout without being arrested, attacked, etc. One has the right to buy their own publishing equipment and publish, and no one has the right to smash their publishing equipment, burn down their business, block the doors, etc. One has the right to put up a website and advertise it (though connectivity is not a right, unless the law says it is).

Even declaring that whatever publishers you're concerned with have become so essential to 'the public square' that they are no longer 'private' but are 'governmental' and thus fall under the First Amendment (putting it in US terms, of course) doesn't change things. The First Amendment also guarantees the right of people to petition the 'government' for the redress of grievances, and publishing 'offensive' content is a 'grievance.'

One could argue that we need some sort of a '21st Century Public Square', the equivalent of 'go down to the park, get on your soapbox, and shout' that is open to everyone and free from 'deplatforming'. That would necessarily be either governmental or quasi-governmental (because any private business could not be constrained to follow the rules without both governmental support and force), which gives me considerable angst, but is certainly imaginable. Yet, even that would not be 'pure free speech.' There are parts of speech that are banned by the government as it is (e.g. CSAM, sensitive military technologies, etc). Thus, it would merely shift the debate to offended persons lobbying the government (again, 100% protected by the First Amendment) to illegalize the content they dislike.

Short answer — you have a right to leave a platform, not demand that someone with whom you disagree be removed by force (my definition).

In other words, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's how it's supposed to work in actual public square. Unfortunately, we see force employed to silence 'objectionable' eleemnts. And that is a slippery slope with no bottom.

Don't want to hear the street preacher or politician? Walk away. Shouting them down is always inappropriate.

Short answer — you have a right to leave a platform, not demand that someone with whom you disagree be removed by force (my definition).

And I disagree. Free speech gives you the right to 'demand' anything you want, as long as that 'demand' uses no violence, threat of violence, or governmental force. It doesn't give you the right for that demand to be carried out, and if it's not, of course you can leave.

Saying that you have no right to 'demand' something is a violation of free speech.

I agree with your suggested behavior as a guide to 'proper' action, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. For one thing, these are not 'public squares', they are a plethora of 'private semi-public squares.' If I choose to walk away from private square A, it's better that I tell A's owner why I'm walking away than if I don't.

Don't want to hear the street preacher or politician? Walk away. Shouting them down is always inappropriate.

As a guide to behavior, yes, but not as a matter of right. Free speech is free speech. If the street preacher has the right to speak, those 'shouting them down' also have the right to speak in an uncontrolled forum. Making a rule that only one can speak is incredibly important to a dialogue, but a dialogue is not 'free speech'.

But, in this case, there's no 'shouting them down'. The speaker loses no right to speak. No one has the right to speech on a privately owned platform except the owners and those the owners choose to grant that right to. The true 'public square' is always available.

I do not support deplatforming in most cases (exceptions being public safety, illegal content, etc), but I will strenuously defend the right of people to call for deplatforming, because the 'cure' is worse than the 'harm'. 'Free speech' is not 'consequence-free speech', and one possible consequence of speech is that private businesses will not want to be associated with that speech. That's how it's supposed to work.

'Force' requires something beyond a threat of taking one's business elsewhere. Begging, pleading, cajoling, complaining, jumping up and down, shouting, and even organized boycotting are not 'force'. Violence, threats of imprisonment, etc are 'force'. Conflating speech with force is also a slippery slope with no bottom.

Short answer — your definition of 'free speech' is no sustainable. It effectively says that only those with power, money, and organization have free speech in the digital age. Anyone with an unpopular, minority opinion, can simply, in effect, be voted off the island with no recourse.

I'd worry about fixing the winner-take-all first-mover advantage you've codified into your definition before I started to worry about whether or not freedom of speech means people are required to listen.

Not at all. You're free to respond, remain silent, or walk away. The choice is yours. What you may not do is try to silence the other person (nor may they try to silence you).

Saying 'I dislike what this person says and you should too!' is 'responding'.

Saying 'I dislike what this person says so much that I will cease visiting your platform so as to not risk subjecting myself to their views' is walking away.

If one cannot do those things, one is not free to respond or walk away except in certain limited ways.

Here's the problem: if violence / governmental force / etc is removed, the decision of a large number of people to 'walk away' has business consequences.

Consider an actual 'square'. Someone with a set of opinions that are wildly unpopular takes up speaking there, every day, standing on their soapbox. A bunch of people say, 'We don't like that guy! Let's tell our friends to go over to the other square six blocks away and hang out!'

If enough of them do that, the restaurants and businesses in the original square suffer. If those restaurants and businesses together own the land of the square, they can ask the speaker to move on. The speaker may still speak at some other square - perhaps an actual 'public square', where the restaurants and businesses do not own the land.

The problem is that a phrase like 'try to silence' is exceptionally broad. When you break it down into 'Tell a private business Y that I don't like hearing person Z and you can decide if you lose my business or theirs,' that's entirely different. In neither case is Z silenced - they can go somewhere else. Z never had a right to Y's services. Z does have a right to speak in public spaces, and that right cannot be abridged.

Without creating a right for Z to use Y's services, there is no way to prevent other persons from encouraging Y to deny service to Z, not should there be any way to prevent it, because that substitutes an actual denial of those persons' right of freedom of speech and Z's right to control their businesses to protect Z from losing a 'right' Z never had in the first place.

In the case of the actual, true, legally defined 'public square', however, I agree, except that the very same constitutional right that creates the right to speech without the government stopping you also creates the right for anyone to petition the government to make that speech illegal. And, if one must be allowed to make such a request of the government, how could one be denied the right to make such a request of a private business?

Mind you, the government should not do so except in extremely limited cases. I'm pretty sure we agree there.

Saying 'I dislike what this person says and you should too!' is 'responding'.

Saying 'I dislike what this person says so much that I will cease visiting your platform so as to not risk subjecting myself to their views' is walking away.

Neither of those is a problem. Adding 'they should not be allowed to epxress their opinon' IS a problem, no matter the form in which that sentiment is expressed.

This is exactly my stance. If one's stance is 'no one should say "X should not be allowed to use platform Y, and Z, and P, and D, and on and on until there are no platforms left", but I will defend to the death their right to say it', I have not the slightest problem with that.

If one's stance is 'one should not allowed to say such a thing, I disagree strenuously'.

Boycotting is a form of pure free speech, and boycotting (by its nature) is a request for the boycotted party to change something (in this case, single-site 'deplatforming') in order for the boycotters to cease the boycott. Anyone attempting to interfere with that right is doing wrong, in my opinion. However, someone counseling against doing it is perfectly fine.

Hence my repeated questions about what 'a problem' and 'wrong' and 'should not' and whatever other phrases are used mean. Moral umbrage, outrage, persuasion, and so forth are (I should hope obviously, since those mirror the free speech of the boycotters) more than fine, perhaps even laudable.

It's when one suggests that such things 'cannot' be done or 'must not be allowed' that one crosses the line, and I (honestly) cannot tell what the meaning of various phrases actually is.

In my opinion, boycotting a platform because you don't like one of their other users is not "an attempt to influence political reform".

And I would argue the opposite, partly because I think your source is flawed.

The question is whether the boycott is on the grounds of economic activity or not. In this case, it's absolutely not on the grounds of economic activity. There's no economic motive to the boycotters.

Consider the boycott of 'The Passion of the Christ'. The goal was not 'political reform', but it was not 'economic', and it was pretty clearly political speech.

Basically: if you're boycotting because it'll help your business at the expense of another, it's not a First Amendment expression. If you're boycotting to gain a non-economic goal, it's a First Amendment expression.

The people boycotting in the cases we're talking about do not stand to make money, so it cannot be 'economic', much less 'purely economic'.

Also, that's somewhat irrelevant. The question of whether the First Amendment applies only matters if the government attempts to suppress the boycott. I haven't yet heard anyone advocate for the government to do that (though, if they did, I would opposite it).

Which no one has said ever.

Hogwash. It happens every day. "This idea or these words are so offensive they should never be allowed to express them" has often been the policy of the US government and adjudicated to be a First Amendment violation by the Courts. And not just recently, for the past 80 years or so. Cf. Pacifica and other SCOTUS rulings.

And that's just government actors. Private actors do it all the time.

Disagree - people definitely say that. There are specific things one cannot legally publish in the United States. Thus, it is the position of the law that no one may do so, and a group of legislators collectively said exactly that. Yes, one can split hairs on the meaning of 'opinion', but for instance 'X is evil, X should die, and you should go kill X' is arguably 'opinion' and quite possibly illegal.

Laws have attempted to criminalize the text-only depiction of certain things (sex acts, building certain weapons, etc). Are those things 'opinions'?

Germany legally bars many opinions about the Holocaust and the Nazi period. There are definitely people in America who believe we should do the same and strenuously promote that view.

Using that subject as an example, I disagree with them but defend their right to do so. More broadly, if one should argue that 'person X's beliefs are so offensive that they should not be allowed to express their opinion', I disagree strongly with them but defend their right to do so.

In the far weaker case of 'person X's beliefs are so offensive that you, platform Y, should not allow them to use your platform,' I even more strongly defend their right to do so. Platform Y is a private actor and is allowed (indeed, somewhat encouraged) to express their opinions, and if their opinion should also be that person X is too offensive for them, that's their right (and perhaps their fiduciary duty).

With apologies, because obviously 'that word does not mean what you think it means', I find it nearly inconceivable that any person's views would be so offensive that every major platform would remove them. Indeed, I fully expect that some platforms will promote those same people strongly because another platform removed them.

I can think of some organizations which I suspect 99%+ of Americans would find thoroughly offensive but that yet have websites which are easily found and not blocked by the major search engines, have forums on various online platforms, etc. But I also fully expect that some people have said 'No one should give organization O a platform, at all, anywhere.'

Note: I am trying hard not to mischaracterize your position, and this is a long reply (par for the course, I know) so there's a non-zero chance I've done so, but I think what I've written is consistent.

So, that said: If your argument is that people should play nice and should should not lobby for 'deplatforming', I have no problem with that, and most of this message is irrelevant as a response directly to you. Encouraging an open mind is always a good thing.

If, on the other hand, your argument is that people must play nice and cannot be allowed to lobby for 'deplatforming', I have major problems with that. Faux openness at the cost of freedom, especially when it's certain to be ineffective, is bad on multiple levels.

TLDR: There's no solution to this 'problem' other than persuasion and encouraging people to 'play nice', and any proposed means of making people 'play nice' is limited, self-defeating, and is itself a blatant violation of freedom.

TLRD2: No one is guaranteed a platform outside of being able to speak freely within their means without the threat of force being used to stop them. No one is guaranteed an audience. No one is guaranteed to not be shunned for what they say.

So:

I don't see what the alternative is. How do you propose 'fixing' the 'problem'? Denying people the right to complain or organize isn't a solution.

It effectively says that only those with power, money, and organization have free speech in the digital
age.

No differently from in the past. One can trot out one's soapbox just as one always did. Those without power, money, and organization had no power to publish or disseminate their views beyond the range of their voice well into the 20th century. Even if every major corporation were to 'deplatform' someone (incredibly unlikely), there are multiple platforms which allege 'free speech uber alles'. Some of them have multidecade histories of accepting pretty much anything (4chan, etc). Without government force, it's virtually impossible to imagine anyone having less opportunity to disseminate their views in 2024 than in 1924.

Anyone with an unpopular, minority opinion, can simply, in effect, be voted off the island with no recourse.

This has always been the case. No one had to listen to the weird guy shouting in the park in 1970, or 1870, or 1770 either. No newspaper was obligated to print their material.

How do you propose to make people listen to unpopular, minority opinions? Even if they're not 'deplatformed', must we have mandatory algorithms that require reading N wildly unpopular posts before Aunt Mildred's latest update? Are we going to get rid of 'unfriend', 'block', etc?

And what stops Company N from starting a site that's 'popular speech only', with a ToS banning 'unpopular and minority opinions' (since ToS restrictions are apparently fine). What stops everyone from moving to Company N's products once they do that?

And, digging in a bit deeper, there are several things being conflated. Just how 'unpopular' and 'minority' is this opinion? If it's 1% -- if it's 0.01%, for that matter -- there's ample evidence that forums for it can and will exist. They do now, and people find them, even if no 'major' platform will host them (and does not now). On the other hand, if literally no one else agrees, how does it make sense that the person has the 'right' to an audience? There are an infinitude of opinions out there. No one can listen to them all.

That's the problem. I see no solution, and I think you're deeply into 'the cure is worse than the disease' territory, putting into place actual, mandatory restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom to lobby in the name of preventing future hypothetical violations of free speech.

That's not what free speech is. You're looking for free speech to be consequence-free in terms of attention and access and for those with 'unpopular, minority opinions' to be guaranteed an audience. Neither has ever been the case.

I also think this totally misses the real threat to information access. It's not people banding together and complaining. It's platforms whose algorithms allow you to publish all you want but never show it to anyone (aka 'shadowbanning'). Even if you can prove it, what's the recourse? Use of force (laws, lawsuits, etc) to compel a company to publish something they don't want to publish? By your own standards, the shadowbanned person would be guilty of 'intimidation' for doing so, and completely improper if they stirred up a mob of complainers. Or are those with unpopular and minority opinions allowed to act upon their complaint that no one hears them, while those who do hear them are not allowed to complain about having heard them?

Mind you, none of this says there's not a potential problem here. I agree: it sucks that people can be 'voted off the island,' even in a limited way. But short of a maintained-by-force bastion of absolute free speech which cannot be abridged (and is, therefore, not a private company, because private companies always have the right to control what they publish), how does one get there? And is putting all of the free speech eggs in the government's basket something we want to do? Mind you, the government will block some topics because we've agreed as a society those are not acceptable. And, mind you, the government must allow one to 'petition for redress of grievances' - including complaints about unpopular, minority opinions on the 'free speech bastion'.

After all that, no one can force anyone to read those postings, and it's inevitable that technologies will be developed to rate, review, and block 'unpopular, minority opinions'.

it's inevitable that technologies will be developed to rate, review, and block 'unpopular, minority opinions'.

At the moment the opposite seems to be the case eg JK Rowling being deplatformed by trans-supremacists.

AJ

There have been instances where JKR accepted invitations to speak to literary audiences about her work but threats from trans-supremacists caused the organisers to cancel.

AJ

I guess I also said that i'm not het up about the fact that she isn't wildly adored

But in the real world she is wildly adored. It's only a vociferous minority who define her by her gender-critical beliefs, which themselves are far from a minority opinion.

AJ

In the real world she is widely adored, but the vast majority of the people who adore her are unaware of her beliefs (not because she is 'deplatformed' but because those people have no contact with the forums on which she posts about those beliefs). With only a very small number of people aware of her beliefs at all, yes, it must by definition be a minority who dislike those beliefs. The people who support her holding those beliefs are, equally, a very small minority of those who adore her. All of that says nothing about what a larger number of people would feel if they were aware of her beliefs.

Note that I intentionally reworded your comment about 'define her by those beliefs'. Of the people who 'define her by her gender-critical beliefs', it seems likely that as many consider define her positively based on those beliefs as define her negatively based on those beliefs.

It is the uttermost conjecture whether her beliefs are 'far from a minority opinion' or 'very much a minority opinion.' Both statements are commonly made, and there is pretty much the same amount of evidence for either: nearly none.

And, circling back to the real point, in which JKR and her beliefs themselves are not significant except as an example, her supporters on this point often seem to be the epitome of people who believe that 'free speech' should be 'consequence-free.' That she should be able to say whatever she wants while those who are offended should shut up and go away, not denounce it, not boycott her, not boycott organizations which promote her, and so forth.

That, to me, is the real problem. It says that her 'free speech' is more important and of more value than the 'free speech' of those who disagree with her, and that their free speech should be abridged in the name of respecting hers.

That's not how it should work, and it's almost never been how it's ever worked.

If one's ideas are popular, the number of conferences and publishers throwing themselves at the speaker asking for them to speak and write will greatly exceed the number who don't wish to be associated with them - yet there may be some of those, too.

If one's ideas are not popular, the opposite is true - many may rush to disassociate, but some may be thrilled to associate.

In both cases, one has been 'deplatformed' in the narrow sense. In neither case has one been 'deplatformed' in the broad case.

the vast majority of the people who adore her are unaware of her beliefs

In this country, everyone who reads a newspaper or watches television news will be aware of the controversy, and the majority will be in agreement with her opinions.

Of the people who 'define her by her gender-critical beliefs', it seems likely that as many consider define her positively based on those beliefs as define her negatively based on those beliefs.

I think that's unlikely. Most people who search for terms like 'gender critical' will be trans activists.

It is the uttermost conjecture whether her beliefs are 'far from a minority opinion'

Opinion polls which weight the people whose opinions they seek against the general population find a clear majority supporting JKR's views. After all, she is pro-trans, only not at the expense of protections for women and children.

If one's ideas are popular, the number of conferences and publishers throwing themselves at the speaker asking for them to speak and write will greatly exceed the number who don't wish to be associated with them - yet there may be some of those, too.

It takes only one bomb threat or one death threat to get a literary meeting cancelled.

AJ

Extremely long reply.

TLDR: No one has a right to use publishing services, to speak at conferences, etc, which they do not own, control, fund, etc. That is not a 'right'. Refusing the use of such services, canceling speaker engagements, etc is not denying one's rights.

Everyone has a right to complain about speech they find offensive, to leave platforms / cancel conference registrations / etc if they host such speech, and to encourage others to do likewise (though complainers, too, have no right to use any specific platform for such complaining), and they have no right to threaten illegal action (violence, etc), only legal consequences (loss of subscribers / attendees / revenue, public shaming, etc). People who threaten illegal action should be held liable for doing so.

That is how the marketplace of ideas works. Trying to ban complaining and group action denies an actual right to protect a nonexistent right, which is absurd. Trying to claim businesses should not use their resources in ways which benefit them, and shouldn't think twice before offering a platform to speakers when offering that platform may harm their business, is also absurd.

END TLDR

In this country, everyone who reads a newspaper or watches television news will be aware of the controversy, and the majority will be in agreement with her opinions.

In the United States, statistics tell us that only a small minority can name more than one or two supreme court justices, either of their own senators, or a host of other people active in national politics, nor name more than a few of the salient issues of the day. I am fairly certain that the great majority of people will have absolutely no idea of her opinions.

I know people who are much better informed than that (they are, in fact, political and news junkies) and also fans of JKR's writing who made it many years without being aware of her opinions.

People who take a strong personal interest in a topic often wildly overestimate how many in the general population are in the least concerned about it. This strikes me as one of those cases. I would honestly be surprised if a majority of Americans could identify JKR as 'the author of the Harry Potter books', much less have a clue of her views on any social issue.

Yes, I'm very cynical about how many people are politically aware, but that cynicism comes from years of paying attention to how little most people pay attention to anything beyond entertainment television, popular films, and popular music.

On the last part of your comment, as well as:

Opinion polls which weight the people whose opinions they seek against the general population find a clear majority supporting JKR's views. After all, she is pro-trans, only not at the expense of protections for women and children.

I refuse to get into the specific popularity or lack thereof of her views (though I will reiterate my stance that it's largely unknown and unknowable at the current time); that takes this much too close to the 'no politics' rule, and the discussion of limiting speech in general is much more interesting than a discussion of JKR's views. Indeed, it would be better if we were not discussing specific current-day people at all, because that risks locking the thread.

I think that's unlikely. Most people who search for terms like 'gender critical' will be trans activists.

If 'most people who search for term X' are opposed to term X, that tells me that there's far more active opposition to X than support for X. It is thus likely platforms will be more prone to consider removing people who support X (when asked to) than if there was more active support than opposition of X. If, in fact, X is popular with the 'silent majority', those who support X should be trying to inform the 'silent majority' that X is being threatened and thus mobilize them to action, and/or mobilize support for 'pure free speech'. People so mobilized, in turn, should inform the platform they would lose more from 'deplatforming' than from not 'deplatforming'.

This is the marketplace of ideas at work, in other words. Pressure campaigns work both ways. If only one side can credibly mount one, that tells the platform something.

It takes only one bomb threat or one death threat to get a literary meeting cancelled.

Depending on one's risk tolerance and security situation, possibly. If a single bomb threat or death threat could shut down the ALA convention or the rallies of nearly any politician across the spectrum, I would imagine they would just stop having them given the number of zealots who oppose the ALA and nearly every politician. Anyone who makes such a threat should be prosecuted for it. But that statement is not actually a claim that there has ever been such a threat in the case of JKR. Has there?

If a threat or two were sufficient to stop speech, no controversial people anywhere would be speaking at conferences or being published, yet I can name hundreds of controversial people (including JKR) who have no particular difficulty finding places to be published or conferences at which to speak. Apparently, credible bomb or death threats are not all that common, and not-so-credible ones are not all that successful.

In one more attempt to bring this discussion back to the real point of this thread: I am strenuously opposed to the oxymoronic view that one must actively limit the right of free speech and of free association of people who dislike the views of someone else in order to 'protect' that person's 'right' to use platforms they do not own or control to express their 'free speech'. This makes no more sense to me than saying McDonalds must allow someone to shout whatever views they want for as long as they want without removing them, while anyone who so much as complains to the management is 'bad' and McDonalds may do nothing no matter how many people complain.

No speaker has the right to speak at a conference someone else puts on. No person has the right to be published by any business they do not control. No person has the right to use any privately-held platform.

Denying others the right (which they do actually have) to complain about a speaker they find offensive, threaten to take their business elsewhere, actually take their business elsewhere, and so forth, all to protect 'rights' which do not and have never existed, is ridiculous.

There is no right to make bomb threats, death threats, other threats of violence, and so forth, and I'm also strenuously opposed to those.

Free speech is not consequence-free. If someone is offensive, private businesses may not wish to do business with that person. That is entirely their right.

Mind you, my opinion would be reversed if we were actually talking about true 'free speech' and actual suppression of it. We are not. We are talking about Person Y's nonexistent 'right' to be able to use privately-held platforms (that Y does not own) and speak at privately-held conferences (that Y does not fund or control) without anyone being able to threaten that platform, conference, etc with loss of revenue, public criticism, etc if Y is given that access.

This, once again, is the marketplace of ideas at work. I understand that you don't like that. Sometimes I don't like how it plays out, either. But it's how things are supposed to work. If your views are popular enough to create a community, or if you have resources, you will always be able to 'publish'. If your views are sufficiently unpopular or you can't afford to self-publish, you will not and will have to resort to actual free speech - the soapbox in the public square. The exact same thing is true for people on both sides of the issue - if those who oppose an author are of small numbers, platforms will laugh at them and ignore their complaints.

Let the 'deplatformed' speaker mobilize a larger group of supporters to pressure the 'offending' platform the other way, or let them take their 'highly popular' views to another platform, which will thus succeed behind the wildest dreams of the platform which dared to 'deplatform' the speaker.

Your position, in effect, guarantees the heckler's veto will win the vast majority of the time, thus empowering those hecklers to silence any opinion to which they object.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that's perfectly acceptable and a good outcome. Does that then extend to lobbying banks to cancel their accounts? To calling their place of employment and demanding they be fired?

Your position, in effect, guarantees the heckler's veto will win the vast majority of the time, thus empowering those hecklers to silence any opinion to which they object.

I disagree (strongly, in fact). One needs a very large number of hecklers to convince a platform to deny service. Most complainants will simply be ignored. I suspect the real number will be an extremely small minority of those 'heckled' - and that's per platform. In the real world, there are often counterveiling platforms such that someone who is unwelcome on platform P is automatically more desirable to platform Q, and Q will loudly and publicly mock the hecklers.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that's perfectly acceptable and a good outcome.

First: I think it's a right. Exercising one's rights is 'perfectly acceptable' in some senses; in other ways it is not. But it's a right, and one that should not be compromised.

Second: I don't think it's a good outcome but (as noted above) I also think it's a very unlikely outcome.

Does that then extend to lobbying banks to cancel their accounts?

Free speech is free speech. Of course, one can do that. Why would they not be allowed to do that? Banks function in a very different regulatory environment, though, and may not legally be able to do so no matter the pressure.

To calling their place of employment and demanding they be fired?

Again, free speech is free speech. Of course, one can do that. There is also a different regulatory environment there, and one may have the right to not be fired based on a pressure campaign (or one may not).

This all comes back to consequences. Free speech is not consequence-free. Expressing an opinion enough people dislike can lead to 'shunning'. It has always been that way.

None of this says it's a good outcome. I strongly suggest that people do not do such things. However, I also strongly support their right to do such things.

And that loops around again to: what is your proposal here? If your proposal is to say 'this is bad and you should not do it', it's likely that in nearly every case I will agree with you. On the other hand, if your proposal is to say 'this is bad and you cannot be allowed to do it', I disagree strenuously. Depriving people of age-old free speech rights to guarantee other people 'rights' they do not and never have had is ridiculous.

If there is a 'proper' solution to your later examples, it's this: allow everyone the right to sue and recover damages if one is 'debanked', fired, etc as the result of a pressure campaign if, in the opinion of a jury, it was done 'improperly.' That places the burden where the burden belongs: on the private actor who took the action. It does not deprive anyone of free speech.

But, of course, the institution so doing would be free to defend itself by saying 'Our terms of service / employment contract / etc requires a certain standard of conduct which was violated; thus, we have taken that action.' One then has the choice of not accepting such terms of service, employment contacts, etc.

Until I have some idea what the intended 'fix' is, though, it's hard to say more. What is the 'fix' here? If it blocks the right of people to lobby for redress of grievances, to choose who they do business with, to inform others of who they no longer do business with and why, and to suggest others do the same, I oppose it, because that right is fundamental and denying it is necessarily oppressive.

Banks function in a very different regulatory environment, though, and may not legally be able to do so no matter the pressure.

Search for Nigel Farage and Coutts. There are plenty more examples of UK customers being debanked for their political views, but Nigel Farage had the political clout to fight back.

AJ

Political clout matters, clearly. No one should think otherwise.

Thank you for clearly acknowledging that you consider threats and intimidation legitimate tactics to silence anyone with whom you disagree.

That's a wildly inaccurate summation of what I said, so I suppose we've even.

First (and again): slippery language. I consider speech which does not contain threats and intimidation by way of violence or force to be a human right.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's 'legitimate tactics'. Some things that a person has the right to do are not generally considered 'legitimate tactics'. The solution is shaming and so forth, not taking away rights.

Second: Nothing being discussed here silences anyone. There is always the public square. It requires governmental action to silence someone.

No one has the right to services provided by an organization they do not own or control. Other people do have a right to express their opinion.

I don't consider silencing to be legitimate tactics; what I do hold is that people have the right to complain, to seek redress, to associate with others, and to encourage action on the part of others, and I consider suppressing that right to be a bad thing.

On the one hand: free speech rights people have had for centuries.

On the other hand: nonexistent 'rights' that people are trying to make up (the right to use someone else's publishing equipment, the right to have a bank account, the right to have a job).

Taking away people's actual rights in the name of protecting nonexistent faux 'rights' is wrong.

Something being uncouth, heinous, illegitimate, etc is beside the point. Denounce and shame all you want. If that's your point, I'm happy to stand right there and support you.

I've asked repeatedly what the position is - whether your view is that it is 'bad' to act in this way and that people 'should not' do so, or whether your view is it is 'wrong' to act in this way and that people 'must not be allowed to' do so. The first I agree with, the second I vigorously disagree with.

Since I haven't seen an answer, many of my replies have been focused on the second.

Spinning it a different way: there are much better ways to resolve this than to attack rights. As I said, I can't tell if you are actually attacking rights or not, so we may agree. But, for anyone who does believe that such speech should not be 'allowed', I disagree. I consider this a moral panic analogous to 'But people may eat too many cheeseburgers, thus burdening the health care system! Cheeseburgers must be banned!' or (back to the 'speech' realm) 'But people may publish books that inspire others to harm minorities! Books which denigrate minorities must be banned!'

The speaker may be at moral fault for trying to get such action to happen (indeed, I'm pretty sure we agree there). The harm, however, is done by the organization which accedes to their demands, not by the speaker. If you wish people to have the right to use publishing services they do not own, support that. If you wish people to have the right to banking or a job, support that. Don't attack existing rights to make those things happen.

If you want there to be guarantees that no one can ever be 'silenced', work towards that rather than trying to ban anyone from urging someone to be 'silenced'. One is positive and threatens no one's rights, the other is negative and threatens someone's rights.

I will happily support spaces which allow everyone to speak and do not allow anyone to be excluded (save, of course, speech which we as a society agree must be criminalized, because that's a necessary restriction - but that set of speech should be a limited as possible and the bar should be very high). Of course, in such a space, people should be free to say 'But Y should be banned!' even as they acknowledge that Y will never be banned. Or, perhaps, the ToS of such a space might preclude calls for banishment - but, if the speech allows no one to be banished, the penalty for violating the ToS cannot be banishment.

Trying to make existing commercial spaces into such things by waving a magic wand doesn't work, though. That's not what they were built for, that's not what they are, that's not why people poured money into that, that's not what investors bought, and they have their own free speech rights which include the ability to banish whoever they wish to banish.

Taking away rights has a very high bar, because the slope is very, very slippery.

What you are ignoring in your arguments is that something may be legal and acceptable when done by individuals but illegal when a group of individuals conspire to do it.

Almost always (but, I agree, not always) that requires an underlying crime. Simply associating when no crime is committed very seldom creates a wrong.

It may also be a civil wrong when done by an individual or a group.

That is absolutely true - but, generally, that requires a motive that is itself criminal. If the motive was economic gain or (potentially) personal revenge, that's one thing. If the motive was 'political' and aimed at the political stances of the other party, that's entirely a different thing and very likely to be protected First Amendment speech.

You'd probably need to provide more specific examples. For instance, in your McDaniel example, it makes an enormous difference whether the motive was political or economic. If the staffers 'conspired' (a loaded term which may or may not be accurate) to 'have [her] fired' (also loaded) so there would be more money available for them, that's possibly actionable by McDaniel, especially if they lied about her. If they felt her political history made her antithetical to the sort of journalism they expected at NBC, and used only facts in their complaints, that's almost certainly not actionable by McDaniel. Motive is absolutely relevant.

If you're thinking of tortious interference, that would generally require an act which is itself illegal, unethical, fraud or deceit, etc. Simply saying 'I'll quit if you don't fire X' is not tortious interference, not even if a bunch of people get together to do so.

And, yes, conduct protected by law (which includes the First Amendment) is a defense to tortious interference, as is truth of statements made. Truth of the statements made is also a defense; factual statements generally cannot constitute tortious interference, even if the speaker intended for the listener to breach a contract.

Whether the state is 'at will' or not (I do not know for this specific case) also matters.

The point is: there are all sorts of subtleties involved. You are obviously correct that there 'may' be a question of legality in very limited circumstances, and there 'may' be some ground for civil suits in other limited circumstances. I suspect that you are wrong about how likely McDaniel would be to have grounds to sue.

All of that said - which is a lot! - none of it changes the basics: being allowed to call for someone to be terminated is protected free speech. That it might bring one civil liability is irrelevant. One has the right to do all sorts of things which might cause one legal grief.

Institutions make business decisions. If someone hires X, and people don't want to do business with them because of X, that is a problem for them. It's a problem whether or not third parties are 'allowed' to call for X to be fired. I would prefer a world where employers have a very high bar to pass before making a decision to fire, but that's where the solution is.

If some elements of a firing decision create a civil suit, so be it. Let's say a bunch of rabble-rousers say 'Z is a horrible puppy-killing grandma-punching jerk!' and mount a pressure campaign to get Z fired. They have the right to do that - even if their statement is a lie.

If, however, their statement is a lie, Z's employer should stand by Z. If Z is fired, Z should have a course of action against the liars and quite possibly against their former employer.

Free speech is preserved; consequences of speech are preserved.

Trying to prevent people from calling for action, when that action does not create an immediate, proximate cause of significant consequences (e.g. falsely crying 'fire' in a crowded theater, or advocating for the lynching of someone on the spot) is the wrong way to solve the problem. It's the moral equivalent of banning cheeseburgers because some people might eat too many of them, or banning shotguns because some people might shoot them at other people.

That some people may abuse free speech is not a reason to restrict free speech, it's a reason to find ways to make abuse harder or educate people to not do so. The rabble shouting 'off with her head!' is not the problem, in general, when they are merely acting to persuade (which includes taking or threatening measures which are themselves legal, such as taking their business elsewhere). The entity who is persuaded and follows through on 'removing her head' is the problem (to the extent there is a problem).

Mind you, that's literal. There are large and moderately organized groups in American politics who are actually calling for the heads of various other politicians to be removed. By and large, that's legally protected speech since they don't meet the terms of a mob creating an imminent threat. I do not consider this a good thing at all - but it's legal.

If one can legally call for someone to be 'beheaded' - and they can - how is it sensible one should not be 'allowed' to call for someone to be 'deplatformed'?

I am fairly certain that the great majority of people will have absolutely no idea of her opinions.

And yet they'd agree with them. The silent majority generally have more pressing concerns than small but strident groups of activists.

Pressure campaigns work both ways. If only one side can credibly mount one, that tells the platform something.

That activists are much better organised than the silent majority?

AJ

Follow that thought like one or two steps further and tell me what you think it implies about how much the "silent majority" cares about the issue at hand

The silent majority have more serious concerns, such as working for a living.

The demographics of trans-supremacists and eco-terrorists etc show overwhelmingly that they're middle-class, rich in time and money. Participating in protests doesn't interfere with their working life. Scarily, a disproportionate number of them have ongoing university connections, professorships etc, suggesting that multiple degrees is a poor indicator of critical thinking ability.

AJ

Scarily, a disproportionate number of them have ongoing university connections, professorships etc, suggesting that multiple degrees is a poor indicator of critical thinking ability.

This is both a significant logical fallacy and just a bad idea all around.

For one thing, it's an ad hominem attack, and it's both a large and particularly silly one. 'These people believe something I don't agree with. Therefore, they must not have critical thinking skills. Therefore, multiple degrees perhaps don't relate to critical thinking skills.'

Analogously, 'A disproportionate number of people who don't agree with us lack advanced education, etc, suggesting that their disagreement stems from poor critical thinking ability. If they were smarter, better educated, and could think, they'd realize we were right.'

I'm not alleging that, mind you. Rather, I'm saying that hypothetical allegation is as absurd and dismissive as the one you're making.

'My opponent doesn't agree with me. Therefore, they must be stupid, poorly educated, or lack critical thinking skills' is a terrible attitude to take when discussing anything. It's dismissive, and it also weakens your position. If you can't make a logical argument from a position that assumes your opposition is intelligent, has solid critical thinking skills, has thought about things deeply, holds their positions based on personal conviction rather than 'indoctrination', etc, you're doing yourself and your argument a disservice.

It's a bad look, and it's a bad look for a good reason.

For one thing, it's an ad hominem attack

True. I frequently attack the incorrect opinion that multiple degrees correlates to reasoning skills. I believe some of the major employers, including in silicon valley, are belatedly recognising this.

AJ

the incorrect opinion that multiple degrees correlates to reasoning skills

Is there actual evidence for this? I'm legitimately interested in the answer.

'People with multiple degrees support things I don't support' isn't evidence. 'People with multiple degrees support X, Y, and Z, and those are bad/silly/etc' also aren't evidence. I'm interested in actual studies of 'reasoning skills' devoid of positions on issues.

One of the problems is study design. A quick search on this found some interesting semi-related articles. For instance, one shows a fairly strong statistically significant correlation between higher education and better critical thinking skills, with growth at each year of education. Another contemporaneous article shows no such correlation. One seems to show that critical thinking skills are largely formed before one hits college age, another shows the opposite.

Thus my interest in seeing where there's good science supporting the idea that degrees correlate (or do not) with reasoning skills, and whether it's different for multiple degrees.

Is there actual evidence for this? I'm legitimately interested in the answer.

I'm pretty sure there is, although I couldn't point to any. Silicon Valley etc companies have found that recruits with multiple degrees tend to be less creative and adaptable than recruits with a single, non-stellar degree or no degree at all.

AJ

Interesting. I'm not sure I'd consider this a true answer, as neither 'creativity' nor 'adaptability' necessarily correlate to 'reasoning', but it's quite interesting.

Mind you, that's anecdotal. Two of the least creative and adaptable people I know are also amongst the best at critical thinking.

And most of the truly creative people I know are relatively lousy at critical thinking.

Anecdotal, yes, but I suspect there is little correlation between those things.

Creativity in this sense is not writing stories, painting pictures or composing music, but taking real-world problems and coming up with solutions. That's the sort or creativity Silicon Valley is looking for.

I'm afraid I don't have a list of companies now filtering against recruits with multiple degrees.

AJ

But, again, that sort of 'creativity' isn't necessarily correlated with 'reasoning'. I've known some very 'creative' engineering-types who are good at taking real-world problems and coming up with solutions.

I say 'engineering-types' because some of them are great at seeing around corners and spotting a solution that will work, but terrible about implementing it. Their code is awful, it crashes a lot, and they need people who'll grind out good, working code to implement their brilliant idea. Many of those good coders will never come up with a truly innovative idea, though.

And then there are the debuggers, who probably come the closest to pure 'reasoning'. They may not be creative, and they may also be lousy at writing code, but they're unparalleled at looking at a problem and telling you why it happened.

Unless something correlates to all of those (and more), filtering against it will get you a slanted workforce who might spot the problem and come up with a solution, but be unable to implement that solution. Or they might implement the solution but have it full of bugs.

There are exceptionally few people who are good at all three. I've met a small handful in decades. Anecdotally, the great majority of them have had multiple degrees.

For instance, one shows a fairly strong statistically significant correlation between higher education and better critical thinking skills, with growth at each year of education. Another contemporaneous article shows no such correlation.

The key here is timing of the studies.

A while back most of the academia in the western world magically switched from teaching real world skills and critical thinking to indoctrination of leftist ideologies.

While indoctrinating students, you want them to blindly believe and regurgitate the agenda/ideology being indoctrinated and you don't want them to think critically because that would counteract the indoctrination efforts.

So an old study may (or may not show) that higher education enhances critical thinking skills, but a new one would most likely show no correlation because critical thinking is thwarted in an indoctrinating institution.

teaching real world skills and critical thinking

To what extent can critical thinking skills be taught? I would have thought it's more like coaching for IQ tests - the subject can be taught to recognise and solve types of IQ tests, but when they come across a type they haven't been coached in, there is no improvement over their innate ability.

AJ

And that's one of the disagreements in the studies. Some say it can be taught and that there's clear improvement. Others say it cannot be taught and there's not.

My suspicion is that it can be taught, but that's pure conjecture, and it can only be taught within a range. Some people are very smart by IQ tests but have lousy critical reasoning skills, but very few people with good critical reasoning skills are not smart.

Related, but not the same: a friend of mine had impeccable test scores and very high IQ scores going into college. He knew everything necessary to blast through the SAT, and he's 'genius-level' IQ-wise (depending, of course, on what one calls genius-level - for this, I'm going with two standard deviations off the mean).

He couldn't write a paper to save his life, his critical reading skills were marginal - good enough for the nascent SAT reading sections (much less strong than they've become), and his research skills were terrible. He'd learned the things one needs to pass the test, in other words.

He learned all of the other things, but it was a struggle. His high school both served him (excellent test scores equaling a great scholarship, easy college admission, more attention once he arrived, etc) and failed him (being able to do the things he couldn't was critical for the next step, and they're things one shouldn't have to learn from nearly ground zero at the college level).

The key here is timing of the studies.

These are studies performed within six months of each other, covering people in the same age band. Changes in the educational system will be of no consequence.

Of course, which schools people attended may be of consequence, but that's not data that was presented.

That's also an issue, definitely. I think there are considerable issues overall.

That activists are much better organised than the silent majority?

That gives you your solution: organize the silent majority.

Your argument is literally 'Enough people care so much about this issue that they'll move heaven and earth to get their way, and there are so many of them that they present a major loss to any business, but they should not be able to prevail simply because some hypothetical apathetic group potentially would feel differently, even though there's no evidence for that and they won't lift a finger to oppose the people who care'.

Remember, there is no evidence that the silent majority agrees. The 'strident group of activists' will claim vociferously that the 'silent majority' agrees with them. Who can possibly disagree? The silent majority isn't going to disagree - they're silent.

Platform X, looking at this from the outside, says 'If we don't ban this person, we lose 10% of our business overnight and we also look bad because everyone is pointing fingers at us and saying we're allowing an awful person to say awful things. On the other hand, if we remove the allegedly awful person who says the awful things, no one seems to care at all.'

What should platform X do? What is their fiduciary duty to their shareholders? Certainly their duty is to make sure that no one actually cares at all, but how are they to do that if the people who care are silent?

You're arguing that the 'loser' in the 'marketplace of ideas' has a card they may play at any time: 'But I am supported by the silent majority!' Voila, their speech must now be treated as 'popular' and 'worthy'.

I have a great deal of disdain for claims that the 'silent majority' supports something. Very, very often it turns out that the 'silent majority' never supported anything of the sort.

Your argument is literally 'Enough people care so much about this issue that they'll move heaven and earth to get their way, and there are so many of them that they present a major loss to any business,

No, the people who care enough 'to move heaven and earth' (quoted, because one of their tactics is to stop traffic, including emergency service vehicles) are actually small in number. Yet they have a disproportionate amount of power which is not subject to democratic process at the ballot box. Anyone standing on an Extinction Rebellion platform, for example, would lose their deposit.

AJ

I generally agree (both with the article and your application of it here).

However, by itself it's a thesis, no more. It's possible this is a case where the 'silent majority' sees little value in pursuing the issue and the 'squeaky wheel' does. But it's also possible that this is a case where the 'silent majority' generally agrees with the 'squeaky wheel' and is happy they're doing the heavy lifting.

Plus, the case we're using in this particular discussion is complicated by there being another set of 'squeaky wheels' on the opposing side, at least one of whom has effectively unlimited resources. Now we have two groups opposing each other, each of which see 'concentrated benefits' in their side 'winning.'

The 'silent majority' becomes an interesting sidelight, but somewhat irrelevant, in the face of that, notwithstanding attempts to invoke it (by either side) for support.

because one of their tactics is to stop traffic, including emergency service vehicles

Not speech; wrong and criminal.

Yet they have a disproportionate amount of power

How do they have this power? What gives them this power? If they're getting that power from their wonderful gift of persuasion, that's completely legitimate. If they're getting it from threats of violence, physical force, crimes in general, that's not legitimate. Which is it?

There are a large number of people who have power outside their numbers, and that's fine. Pretty much every billionaire (no exceptions) has power far outside their numbers, and by and large it's not subject to democratic process at the ballot box either. Lest you think I'm referring to one specific person, there are two billionaires in Texas who may well have more impact over Texas state politics than every other person in Texas combined.

Billionaires have economic power. Small groups of people insufficient to create an economic impact through their spending either have persuasive power (mobilizing enough people to create an economic impact or sufficiently shaming an organization to cause them to change behavior) or violent power.

In this case, what sort of power are you alleging? If you are alleging that, collectively, they have economic power, that's protected (at least in the US). If you are alleging that they are using persuasion, that's free speech. If you are alleging illegal threats, that's illegal, and they should be prosecuted and/or sued.

How do they have this power? What gives them this power?

The protestors turn up, glue themselves to motorway bridges or railings or doors, throw orange or red paint around, and prevent members of the public going about legitimate business. The protestors have organisations running scared. They know that even if protestors are arrested, they'll be back on the streets again the next day, causing more terrorism.

AJ

The protestors turn up, glue themselves to motorway bridges or railings or doors, throw orange or red paint around, and prevent members of the public going about legitimate business.

I will repeat, at least for my position in this discussion: this is not covered by free speech and should be prosecuted (and/or treated as a civil wrong) as necessary.

However, since it's already illegal, there's nothing actionable here (or, if there is, I don't see it). I don't anything that can be banned which is not already banned, unless one is willing to take the extraordinary step of telling a private business that it must offer service to someone because they are a 'problem customer' (someone for whom offering service risks damaging their business).

I will repeat, at least for my position in this discussion: this is not covered by free speech and should be prosecuted (and/or treated as a civil wrong) as necessary.

I tried searching for 'Rowling meeting cancelled' for instances where scheduled talks have been called off after threats of protests from trans-supremacists (the organisers couldn't afford to provide security to attendees), but the top zillion results were from when Rowling was deplatformed on social media.

I'm uncomfortable with her recent antics. It's true that Scotland has come up with a godawful hate crime law - if you claim that people can't change their biological sex (which is protected speech in England, as though it's a religious belief rather than science) and a trans-supremacist reports it as hateful, that report will stay on someone's record potentially forever, even if police decide that no crime was committed - but I don't think her trans friends will be pleased about her provocatively naming a host of trans-women as men.

AJ

Again, while trying to avoid specifics and debate personalities, this is partly what I meant by the extremes ruling things. A gaping void of possible compromises exists in the middle but is left vacant by both sides fighting for the extremes.

While I understand the political axiom that, if you don't ask for everything you'll barely get anything, that axiom is based on eventual compromise. You have to be willing to compromise before you'll get anywhere.

On the other hand (and, to some extent, where this discussion started), there are always things upon which it's hard to compromise because any concession is a defect. If one, for instance, compromises on 'it's ok to violate defendants' rights sometimes', the slippery slope is well and truly engaged. Trying to determine which is which is the tricky part.

Remember, there is no evidence that the silent majority agrees.

I didn't say that and it's untrue. Some pollsters go the extra distance to poll members of the public, rather than allowing people to self-select via the internet (which is why YouGov polls are so unreliable) or calling people on a list (which favours people who are rich in time and money and don't have to work for a living - fertile activist territory).

Not all polls are useless so don't tell me to remember that they are.

AJ

My point was that, thus far, no such polling has been shown.

However, in my opinion, nor should it be - debating the specific polling numbers in this case is under SoL's 'politics' ban.

If there is a silent majority which agrees, though, mobilize them. There is hardly any lack of resources with which to do so in this particular case. Otherwise, again, you create a situation where all one need to is yell 'silent majority' and everyone must accede to your wishes.

I am certain that the opposition just as strongly claims that the silent majority believes in their point of view and will happily produce statistics to 'prove' that.

My point was that, thus far, no such polling has been shown.

I haven't included any cites because tracking down the newspaper articles that publicised them would be well-nigh impossible. But they exist and, IMO, they are credible.

Just because you're unaware of them doesn't mean others are too.

AJ

I'm aware of them; I'm also aware of ones which show the opposite (and which are also credible).

And I'm going to drop that point entirely at this point (again, because of the 'politics' ban).

I'm aware of them; I'm also aware of ones which show the opposite (and which are also credible).

You previously denied knowing about them.

I could claim that of the polls I've seen reported, the ones with better protocols are more likely to produce anti-woke results. But then I'm not prepared to publish my credentials for my competence at assessing poll protocols.

I don't understand your continued reference to 'politics ban'. As a UK commercial once stated, everything is politics-related. But Lazeez's aim was to stop arguments from degenerating into personal insults, as happens with Trump v Biden or Republican v Democrat.

AJ

You previously denied knowing about them.

I did not. They have not been shown here - nor should they have.

But Lazeez's aim was to stop arguments from degenerating into personal insults

I'm not prepared to speak to Lazeez's aims. Several of the threads that have been closed for 'politics' have had very few if any personal insults. Lazeez cited 'politics' as the reason for the closure, not 'personal insults'. I have also seem some very insulting threads go on and on - but those threads did not contain reference to 'politics.'

Thus I will consider it to be a ban on 'politics' and not 'personal insults' until shown otherwise.

everything is politics-related

This is one of the reasons the world has gotten so awful. Politics has turned into a 'team sport', where many things that have nothing to do with 'politics' in a broad sense are suddenly 'political'.

I will still partly agree with your overall point, but once we get into the specifics of 'trans rights', that's something that has often caused arguments to degenerate. Thus far, discussions about curtailing free speech have not.

What matters is not whether or not JKR has been successfully deplatformed.

If she's been denied a single platform, that counts as deplatforming according to dictionary definitions. The definitions don't require her to be denied all platforms.

AJ

If I submit an article to, I dunno, the London Journal of Economics, it will not be accepted.

Not even if the article was solicited, like JKR was invited to give talks?

AJ

In that case, I would consider the 'dictionary definitions' to be useless and perhaps even counterproductive.

I have been denied the right to have my opinions published in the New York Times. I am therefore 'deplatformed'.

If you carefully read Websters' version, they do use 'deplatform' for a single platform, but that form of the word is not the buzzword 'deplatforming' people are upset with, but rather the term used for removing someone from a single platform. So, yes, one has been 'deplatformed', but that deplatforming is insignificant in the larger picture.

It's the 'broad sense' meaning that has the connotation of 'denying someone a forum'.

One problem with the narrow definition is that it encourages semantic arguments. Let's assume JKR (who most likely never did this - this is a hypothetical only - and I'm using her as an example only because she's already in the discussion) makes an account on a trans-friendly site and posts a trans-hostile message. The moderators duly remove her - as they should, and as she knows they will.

Voila! Deplatforming in action!

What sort of 'threats' are we discussing? Were these threats of violence (bad - should not be acceptable) or threats of cancelation of registrations (good - boycotting is a time-honored means of protest)?

Simply invoking 'threats' is meaningless without knowing what the 'threats' are. Violence and threats of violence are not free speech. Saying 'I dislike X and what they stand for, I will not have my money go towards an organization that welcomes X, and I will encourage others to do likewise' is free speech.

JK Rowling has hardly been 'deplatformed' in the broad sense of the word. No one 'deplatforms' a billionaire at all, much less one with a very large number of highly devoted followers. She has an extraordinary ability to make her views heard far and wide.

That she has fewer devoted followers now is indeed testimony to how unpopular her opinions have come to be, but I - someone who does not seek out her opinions - still see her messages on a regular, ongoing basis.

She has all of the opportunity in the world to get her message out there, and does, even to people who dislike hearing it.

How do you propose to make people listen to unpopular, minority opinions?

I don't and this is the mischaracterization you sought to avoid.

So at least we agree there. Progress!

I would include threats of regulatory action (not directly related to the thing being demanded) by government officials.

I would agree. Invoking governmental action (force) is force. It's not persuasive, and it's not relying on the power of the right of association.

I would also include threats of dubious legal action (lawsuits).

This bothers me, because 'dubious' is in the eye of the beholder. In a perfect world (and so much of this discussion really is 'perfect world' theory, not practice), I'd prefer that courts swat frivolous lawsuits away sufficiently to deter them from happening (in which case the threat is an idle threat and everyone knows it).

My biggest concern here is with laws which create a risk of these suits being successful. That's one of the many problems with some of the 'social media laws' states are floating - one of the primary 'enforcement mechanisms' is to make what would otherwise clearly be frivolous lawsuits against private businesses not legally 'frivolous', which invites governmental force into the issue.

The lawsuit itself is not the threat. The real threat is the misguided law that says 'anyone can sue company X because company X might have moderated / deplatformed / shadowbanned / etc person Y'. Company X has the right to free speech and can do any of those things. Ironically (but also intentionally - this is not a 'bug' but a 'feature' for the authors of the laws in question) a law that ostensibly 'prevents' deplatforming has the effect of increasing it, because company X's best course of action is to withdraw service entirely from states which have such laws.

Of course, some states ALSO claim it's a violation of the law for company X to deny service to their residents, which is patently absurd. But the goal here is not to make Company X, or the state, a free speech paradise, the goal is to 'get' whatever company is out of favor with the state by creating as much hassle for them as possible, all while pretending to 'do something' about a 'problem' that isn't a problem at all.

In other words, the goal is to attack free speech under the guise of supporting it.

Which has never happened. Corporate America makes its own decisions.

US Federal Courts have ruled that the US government used it's power to coërce platforms to delete messages the government didn't like.

The 5th Circuit Agrees That Federal Officials Unconstitutionally 'Coerced' or 'Encouraged' Online Censorship

Biden administration coerced social media giants into possible free speech violations: court

It hasn't played out completely yet, but as of this moment, the courts have ruled that it has, in fact, happened.

been needed for a while, in particular Amazon and Apple

Amazon? Perhaps. Apple? The case is preposterous. We can discuss in another thread if you like, or you can join my Discord server.

Which activists?

Pick 'em — climate, race, gender, etc. But your mind is made up, so lengthy debate seems pointless.

You make assertions without any attempt to show the connection. Cite the private groups pressuring the government to take the action they did.

The list is lengthy. I am positive you know many of the groups. I'm also positive you'll reject any groups I list, so it's futile.

You've stated, clearly, that you think it's OK to use threats and intimidation to silence individuals, including pressuring their banks and employeers to terminate them based on a vague, undefined notoin of 'offense'.

And with respect to Apple, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the fact that every app has to flow through their app store alone was an antitrust violation from day one. The fact that they also get a cut of purchases made in-app just compounds that violation. It's called "tying".

It's not tying any more than a cable company setting up tiers is tying. If we follow your logic, Sears could be required to carry JC Penney's store brands and Target could be required to allow Best Buy to have shelf space and set up their own checkout without paying Target for the privilege. Or requiring Ford to offer a Mercedes engine option in their cars.

Nobody is forced to by an Apple product. The fact that people choose to do so seems to annoy you.

You can only use apps that Apple approves and agrees to list in its store

I understand Apple has just been heavily fined for not allowing app creators to tell customers where they can buy their app cheaper than via the Apple store.

AJ

Worse, consumers cannot obtain apps from anywhere other than the Apple app store. And if the apps have in-app purchases, Apple gets a cut.

The report I read claimed that some apps could be obtained cheaper elsewhere. I believe access to Spotify was mentioned as an example. I have no Apple products (I'm not rich enough to lash out on overpriced luxury products) and I've never used Spotify so I can't personally verify the claim.

AJ

Apps which have a cost to install cannot be obtained cheaper elsewhere.

However, subscriptions can be obtained elsewhere if the app developer allows it. Spotify is an example. Any in-app transaction (which includes subscriptions) can theoretically be done elsewhere if the app developer allows it.

The app developer cannot provide a link to the 'elsewhere' or otherwise point people to it within the app. Any pointers must be external to iOS.

'Tying' is generally illegal only when the two products are not strongly related.

For instance, I buy an HP printer. HP cannot sue me if I find a way to use someone else's ink, but they can (and do!) use every technological means at their disposal to make sure I can't find a way to do so. The printer and the ink are 'tied', but that's legal. They're related products and HP can make a business case that tying them is a benefit (quality control, etc).

Similarly, Apple's 'app store' is legal. It's tied to the phone as a subsystem. Apple is completely transparent about that. Indeed, Apple considers it a consumer benefit that they tightly control the app store and markets it that way. The products are strongly related. Apple also makes the case that it's nearly impossible for them to offer support without control of what can be installed, and that support is one of their key market differentiators. Most competing systems set flags once the system is set to allow uncontrolled third-party apps and deny support once those settings are changed (even if changed back), but Apple considers it to harm their customer relationship to go down that path. That's a business decision; let the consumer choose which model they want.

One of the tests (and the one most likely to be used) in the Apple app store case involves whether Apple's restrictions cause a significant adverse impact on the number, variety, and quality of available apps. It would be very hard to make such a case.

Obviously, it's debatable, but it's certainly not in any way 'open and shut'. Apple is hardly the only vendor tying products, and tying is not automatically illegal (indeed, it's quite common in the computer industry and very often legal).

One of my areas of expertise is computer storage. For enterprise storage systems, it's extremely common for vendors to block the use of any non-certified storage devices. The only supplied of certified storage is the storage system vendor. That's tying; it's legal. The storage vendor can and does make the case that it's an impossible support burden for them to support enterprise-quality storage with unknown storage devices they've never even tried.

The biggest argument would be that Apple constitutes a 'monopoly' (which raises the bar for tying), but (even in mobile devices) that seems unlikely. Windows has only partially been held to be a 'monopoly', and Android is far more at parity with iOS than Windows is with MacOS, Linux, etc. If you compare the sorts of restrictions placed on Windows (some, but very limited), you might get an idea of the limits of how far things will go with Apple.

Mind you, there are specific instances in which Apple may indeed act as an illegal monopoly. The App Store is (IMHO) not one of them, nor is 'tying' in general. Cases where e.g. Apple restricts use of an API to Apple software to the detriment of non-Apple software which does 'the same thing' may indeed be illegal and monopolistic. The same is true for things which artificially make use of Apple accessories preferable to non-Apple accessories. Those are far more narrow, however.

And as I said, the case against Apple is stronger than the case against MS.

I disagree. I think the case against Apple is enormously weaker than the case against MS. MS was tying strictly unrelated things together. Apple is selling, as a feature, related things being tied together.

Because:

1) MSFT was far more of a monopoly than Apple has ever been (and, indeed, is still far more of a monopoly than Apple is).

2) MSFT was tying strictly unrelated things together. A music player or a media player is not an operating system, and their tying mechanism mattered in terms of the technology of the time (free browser/player vs potentially hours of downloading or having to pay for one).

Apple is a much smaller minority, their tying is fundamentally necessary to the advantage they're marketing (there is virtually no way to market the secure ecosystem which is a key differentiator of the iOS market without having control of an App Store with no circumvention), and (as you'll note, since it's not a major part of any allegations against Apple) their offering a browser and a media player is no longer controversial since acquiring alternatives is quick and free.

One of the problems here is that removing Apple's control over the App Store fundamentally destroys a feature that is highly sought after by many of Apple's customers. Taking such an action needs an extremely high level of scrutiny, because it will remove an entire class of choices from consumers with no alternative.

Removing Microsoft's ability to ship browsers and media players (which didn't even happen, they just had to offer browser-free versions in limited configurations) had no effect on customer options.

What would be limited (but likely won't happen, and I doubt the Justice department would even push for it) would be some push to make Apple offer 'unrestricted' iPhones which weren't tied to the App Store. That can't just be a toggle, though - they would need to be different models with clear differentiation, and customers would almost certainly have to pay an upcharge for that (because it truly creates a support nightmare for Apple) or greatly reduced support options.

Note that's what's happening in the EU - yes, there'll be an option to install apps in ways other than via the App Store, but it won't be free, it will come with a significant diminishment of platform security, and Apple will offer a lower level of support for people who choose to do those things, plus some functionality will be removed because it's impossible to support the platform as it exists when the app environment is unrestricted.

It would be interesting to see how many people would choose the unrestricted platform.

The law does not require that the offending organization be a monopoly

I did not say it did. My comment was in response to the MSFT case.

The availablity of apps only through the App Store is classic anti-competitive behavior.

In your opinion, but there's little evidence for it.

They have alternatives that they can use to secure security of the system

Please explain them, because they seem to have escaped the attention of thousands of security researchers as well as the government.

Apple requires its customers and app developers to pay them for wo reasons: to tie into the Apple system and to make more money.

Again, in your opinion.

The Apple statement on other app stores contains none of the claims that you are making:

Let's see:

Alternative app marketplaces aren't made or managed by Apple, and Apple's ability to support users impacted by issues with apps downloaded outside the App Store (including alternative app marketplaces) is limited.

A claim I made.

Privacy and security questions about apps listed on alternative app marketplaces

A claim I made.

iPhone, iOS, and the App Store are part of an integrated system designed to protect user security, privacy, and safety, and provide a simple and intuitive user experience.

A claim I made.

You seem to have missed a few.

And, again, my point remains: the way iOS works now is viewed as a feature by many consumers. It's a key element of Apple's marketing. It's not obscure, it's not hidden, it's something they specifically advertise as a feature. Blocking it removes a feature consumers want with no way to replace it.

Right now, if my phone is taken, and even if the thief has my passwords, can fake my biometrics, etc, there is no way for them to install unvetted applications on the phone without either 1) exploiting a bug (which are constantly being fixed) or 2) making some fairly comprehensive changes to the device which are easy to detect. Alternate app stores undermine that, potentially fatally, and greatly increase the attack surface, which increases the odds of malware, spyware, stalkerware, etc.

It's not 100% - no security system is - but it's inarguably a feature, and one that's extremely hard to duplicate as well as being extremely expensive.

All of that is anti-consumer. The argument here is that somehow we should accept a range of anti-consumer outcomes in the name of protecting consumers from a choice they have voluntarily made, having been informed in advance that they were making such a choice. The burden of proof on the government should be very high to obtain such outcomes.

I didn't necessarily say 'steal'. Stalkerware is a concern. So is snooping via use of unvetted apps. A stolen iPhone is useless to anyone without all of the credentials and, with the recent changes, the remaining scam where one could divert Apple Cash and such is also basically broken, so they're a nearly useless target for thieves in terms of money.

On the other hand, anyone with access can violate your privacy in a huge number of ways if they have unfettered access to install apps. That creates a market for all sorts of malware, and since the owner isn't the one making the choice to install, saying 'let the owner choose' doesn't work.

The point is: people are knowingly making a choice to opt into a protected ecosystem because of those protections. You are arguing that people should have that choice taken away from them by the government, and that (in essence) no one should even be allowed to offer such a choice.

Blatantly anti-consumer outcomes in the name of 'protecting consumers'.

The point is: people are knowingly making a choice to opt into a protected ecosystem because of those protections. You are arguing that people should have that choice taken away from them by the government, and that (in essence) no one should even be allowed to offer such a choice.

Blatantly anti-consumer outcomes in the name of 'protecting consumers'.

Exactly right. This entire suit, plus the EU actions, are actually anti-choice and anti-consumer, as they are taking away the option of a voluntarily chosen closed ecosystem. Nobody is forced to by an iPhone.

You can see the weakness of the government's case when they claim that iMessage hurts people's feelings.

Also, the government claims that Apple locks out competitors from SMS, but WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal are ail available, and don't use SMS on Android.

What specific claim are you referring to here?

From the DoJ complaint:

Many non-iPhone users also experience social stigma, exclusion, and blame for 'breaking' chats where other participants own iPhones. This effect is particularly powerful for certain demographics, like teenagers

That is NOT a legal argument, and shows just how weak their case is.

How does it even know what the target device is?

Because iMessages are encrypted end-to-end, and they go via a secure channel over the internet, not via the SMS (i.e. the unencrypted cell carrier messaging protocol).

The default is to use iMessage, if the target phone number or email address is registered with Apple for that purpose. You can opt-out easily on-device.

In addition to degrading the quality of third-party messaging apps, Apple affirmatively undermines the quality of rival smartphones.

Hogwash. Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram all work on the iPhone the same as they do on Android or on a computer. SMS is fully supported. So, no, they do NOT degrade third-party messaging.

Apple is implementing RCS, but that's a third-party messaging protocol, like SMS (i.e. a standard) so Apple is doing the exact opposite of what the government claims.

It's a reference to Apple's identifying (which BTW often misidentifies) contacts who are not in the Apple environment. While this alone would not be a strong basis for a case, it is evidence of their attempt to "other"-ize those not in that environment and does offer support for the argument that they are trying to monopolize the market.

Hogwash. All SMS messages are treated equally, and Apple fully supports SMS and MMS. They indicate messages are ENCRYPTED (it has zero to do with properly identifying the sender). Your outgoing messages are blue if they are encrypted, green if they are not.

Apple also has WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and other messaging apps in the App store, and they function substantially the same on IOS as they do on Android, Windows, or MacOS.

Signal does not support SMS because it is insecure and unencrypted. Similarly, iMessage does not support unencrypted messages, instead sending them via SMS/MMS, something Signal does NOT do.

So, Apple actually provides BETTER communication than third party apps, and is not blocking them from using encrypted channels. Precisely the opposite of what the government has claimed.

The vast majority of iPhone users are not buying iPhones for its protected ecosystem. That is not actually a consideration in their minds.

Pure conjecture on your mind. Apple markets it as a feature. Presumably they have some idea of whether your marketing works. There are certainly people who do - iPhones are much more popular with dissidents, journalists, etc because they are so much harder to compromise than Android devices.

But the argument here goes farther. Not only are you arguing that people aren't making such a choice, but that they should not be allowed to make such a choice, and that it should be illegal to offer such a choice.

It would be an interesting case. An iPhone supporting alternate app stores would necessarily cost more (lower revenue, higher cost for Apple), with lower available support (by definition) and reduced functionality and security. In theory, some people would want to buy it because they might save enough on the back end or because that's their thing, but it would be interesting to see how well it sold.

Forgive me, but you sound like a shill for Apple's competition.

What choice do you believe is removed currently?

The choice that is being removed is to purchase a system where the platform and applications have been professionally curated to work together and where there is no possibility (save bugs, etc) of someone subverting that by installing a non-vetted app. This matters to people who are concerned with spyware and the like.

The necessary technical information is already available. That's beside the point. People who are writing spyware and the like are not interested in making 'compatible apps' except to the extent that it disguises their spyware.

In the PC market, sure. However, we are talking the Smartphone market, which even Apples cadre of lawyers will be unlikely to include in the relevant market.

Agreed, on a literal level. To spell it out specifically:

MSFT was far more of a monopoly in the PC market, which is the market where antitrust action was taken against them, than Apple is in the smartphone market, which is the market for which antitrust action is being taken against them.

Is that better?

In the PC market, sure. However, we are talking the Smartphone market, and even Apple's cadre of lawyers will be unlikely to include PC's in the relevant market.

They don't need to. The goernment created an artificial 'performance smartphone' market in order to be able claim Apple has a monopoly, which they do not (and were adjudicated not to be a monopoly in the Epic case). The government will have to overcome that ruling AND have their new definition survive to even have a chance.

Whatever the merits of the case, you can't simply gin up a new market definition expressly for the purposes of claiming a monopoly.

'Covered by', yes. No one is disputing that.

However, they have far less market power in the smartphone market than MSFT had, or has, in the personal computer operating system market. The sanctions put on MSFT were very mild. One would reasonably expect the sanctions put on Apple to be even milder.

Monopoly isn't a part if the law dealing with tge anticompetitive behavior in which Apple is alleged to have engaged in.

And yet the government made the point that they had monopoly power in the 'performance smartphone' market, wwhatever that made up thing is.

Microsoft had its browser packaged with PCs to extend their PC monopoly to the PC-independent browser market.

As I said.

The Apple app store has fuck all to do with its OS. Do not conflate the two.

That is your opinion. Since they are selling a platform, not an OS, the App store has an enormous amount to do with the platform, however. Your point is technically correct, but it's like saying a smart TV's user interface has 'fuck all' to do with its functionality as a TV.

Apple is preventing smartphone independent apps from being loaded in its system.

That is incorrect. They are preventing unvetted apps from being loaded in its system. The hurdle one needs to pass to vet an app is very, very low - enough that there are millions of free, non-monetized apps available.

Regardless of the previous 3 points, the app store is a means of distribution. Controlling the means of distribution for products or services in a market in which you compete is textbook anticompetitive behavior.

It may be 'textbook anticompetitive behavior', but it is not anticompetitive behavior in all cases. Controlling the means of distribution of apps for a platform in which a major selling point is that the means of distribution of apps is controlled is somewhat different; I hope you would agree.

What you're arguing is that curated platforms are prima facia illegal. I disagree, and as far as far as I am aware there is no court precedent supporting your view.

Could you explain what a 'platform independent app' is and how it might 'commodify the smartphone market'?

Considering Apple supports web apps, which are 'platform independent apps', and there are enormous numbers of apps which are available on other platforms besides iOS, your argument seems to be ridiculous on its face.

Not only that, but there are numerous platform-independent frameworks which are supported on both iOS and Android. Apps written for those frameworks are routinely accepted into Apple's app store.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but it seems to be completely wrong. Maybe there's some definition of a 'platform independent app' I'm not aware of, though.

You're completely missing the point, and you're missing it so badly that I find it hard to believe you're not missing it on purpose.

The point is: once one has any path to 'sideload' apps, which includes 'open app stores', there is no longer a guarantee that unvetted apps cannot be loaded. That is of concern to anyone who wants that guarantee. People who are worried about stalkerware, spyware, etc (which is a sizeable set of people) are concerned about that. It's not enough to say 'just don't use it' - one of the concerns are devices being compromised by others. Once any unvetted apps are sideloaded there is a possibility that those apps can hide the evidence of tampering, presenting a trojan horse interface. This is not hypothetical - bugs have been used to create the same behavior. Bugs are, of course, inevitable, but such a change massively increases the attack surface one needs to defend.

The compromise position here would be for Apple to offer 'insecure' phones which were otherwise the same as other iPhones but did not offer a closed ecosystem.

Undoubtedly they would have a different cost model since Apple's profit on them would differ, but it's something they could offer. It's a higher cost to them, both from the loss of revenue and increased complexity and support costs, but one could make up for that with higher initial cost.

If so, it would be interesting to see how many people picked the insecure platform. My guess is that it would be low, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Blocking the existence of a secure platform is consumer-hostile, though, no matter how much one claims it's being done in the name of consumer protection.

Blocking the existence of a secure platform is consumer-hostile, though, no matter how much one claims it's being done in the name of consumer protection.

Bingo. And I am one who uses Apple devices with basically maximum security (not lockdown mode, but every other secure feature in place). The EU and DOJ want to deny me that choice.

Much of this is caused by mouching companies (looking at you Epic Games) and activists, and is NOT consuemr driven. Why? Because it's actually consumer hostile and legally mandates someone else's vision of a good platform.

No one is saying and the government is not seeking to close down the app store. Apple still maintains it in the EU.
It's not taking choice away from consumers: it's seeking to give them greater choice.

Because you are focusing on the App Store, not on the fact that it is literally impossible to install software on my iPhone except a) via Apple's update process; b) Apple App store. Once an API exists to allow apps that are not signed by Apple onto the device, it is no longer secure. Period.

What I want is a secure device where nobody can install anything that has not been vetted/signed by Apple.

If you want a device like that, get Android. Don't demand I not be permitted to buy a device with a closed ecosystem.

Because you are focusing on the App Store, not on the fact that it is literally impossible to install software on my iPhone except a) via Apple's update process; b) Apple App store. Once an API exists to allow apps that are not signed by Apple onto the device, it is no longer secure.

Why? Nobody is saying you have to use other app stores - you can continue to download apps from the Apple app store knowing they've been vetted and will keep your device secure, except from the likes of Pegasus.

In the thread about covers having multiple orgasms, responders have suggested OSS such as Gimp for computer users to manipulate text on images. Why shouldn't iPhone users (and iPhones are computers) be allowed to download OSS software to run on their phones?

AJ

*I use a droid phone, not an iPhone.

If there were a competition on here as to who knows the least about smartphones, I would be a strong contender for first place. But aren't Android and iPhone both Linux machines under the covers? Or am completely wrongheadedly wrong?

AJ

If I ever wanted to get a phone, I'd want to be free from the evil duopoly. I read that people can buy pure Linux phones, and that existing phone apps will sometimes work on them, albeit with a bit of tweaking. I thought they said Android and Apple but clearly I was wrong about Apple. Thanks for the explanation.

AJ

Why? Nobody is saying you have to use other app stores - you can continue to download apps from the Apple app store knowing they've been vetted and will keep your device secure, except from the likes of Pegasus.

If the API exists, it can be co-opted. Without the API, there is no vector.

Pegasus requires physical posession of the phone. An 'install anything' API does not.

That's a HUGE difference.

Fundamentally, if someone has physical possession of your device, all you can do is make things difficult for them. A determined actor, especially a state actor, with physical possession has a strong likelihood of accessing the device.

If the API exists, it can be co-opted. Without the API, there is no vector.

That's way over my head. Could you dumb it down please.

If someone were to download an app from a non-Apple-vetted store, and the app had been compromised by a bad actor (sorry, Keanu), how might that affect your phone? Would it be like conventional computers, via e-mail viruses and web script viruses?

AJ

How is that an app store problem? Surely governmental bad actors can do that whether Apple vets user-downloaded apps or not?

AJ

That's way over my head. Could you dumb it down please.

If someone were to download an app from a non-Apple-vetted store, and the app had been compromised by a bad actor (sorry, Keanu), how might that affect your phone? Would it be like conventional computers, via e-mail viruses and web script viruses?

An API is an Application Programming Interface. and is what allows an app to use features of the phone. If no API exists, the features cannot be accessed. It also provides security and separation, so apps cannot steal data from other apps or do things which would violate security or permissions set by the user.

Right now, there in no facility to install unsigned code, that is, code that does not have a verified cryptographic signature (see note). That means that only apps vetted by Apple and signed by the app store (and the developer) can be installed or run. Once you make that API available, it becomes available to anyone and everyone.

At the moment, short of physical; possession of my device, nobody can forcibly install an app that doesn't come via the app store. That will no longer be truse if sucn an API exists. And if it exists, it will be explouted.

Even with physical access, Apple has protections against things like 'downgrade attacks' (installing an older, buggy version of IOS to take advantage of bugs that were fixed in later versions) and other protections.

Note: There is a facility for applications to be installed by on managed devices (i.e in a corporate environment), but this requires manually installing a certificate which requires physical access to the device and the device password.

Thank you.

I hope I understand a little better now.

AJ

It's not taking choice away from consumers: it's seeking to give them greater choice.

The choice to intentionally forgo other choices in ordered to obtain perceived benefits which result from permanently forgoing those choices is also a choice, a choice that would be taken away if alternate app stores were merely made available. Even if one does not use them, the design changes which must be made to allow their use break the security model.

A second argument, of course, is that Android has had sideloading and alternate app stores from the beginning. Consumers for whom that matters have always had the alternative to opt into that model.

What option would consumers have who do not want even the possibility of 'sideloading' to exist on their device if that business model was ruled to be illegal?

What option would consumers have who do not want even the possibility of 'sideloading' to exist on their device if that business model was ruled to be illegal?

None, of course, all in the name of 'protecting' them. It's about mouchers who want a free ride on another company's successful platform.

Or, perhaps, nefariously, a way to ensure the government can surreptitiously install software on your phone (something Apple has consistently resisted).

The lack of reciprocity has been pointed out. A woman saying 'good boy' to a grown man would come across as strange. Barring femdom situations, where the man is wearing a nappy and drinking from a baby's bottle, of course ;-)

AJ

Nor do they have the "Right" to castigate others for petty offenses of sensibilities.

I disagree very strongly. If what you meant by 'castigate' was 'use force to suppress', that's very different, but that's not what 'castigate' means.

As the old saw goes: 'If you can't take it, don't dish it out.' I have just as much right to criticize what you say and how you say it as you have to criticize what I say and how I say it. If you offend me, I have every right to castigate you for doing so, up to and including offending you by my response.

Our world is now just petty and soft as mush.

And yet you want to protect people who 'offend' from being 'castigated.'

Also, note that this is in relation to personal communication. In a work setting, your employer absolutely has the right (indeed, both the legal obligation and the fiduciary duty) to forbid a great deal of offensive speech, and will very definitely castigate you for it should you cross the line.

originally linguistic term "gender" for "sex"

This is incorrect. 'Gender', in English, had to do with grammar (e.g. 'he' and 'she' are 'gendered') until the 1950s and 1960s, when it was expanded to cover how one expresses behavior related to e.g. 'maleness', 'femaleness', etc, and so forth (e.g. 'gender expression') - a sociological term. After that, people opposed to the idea of 'gender expression' started a push to conflate 'gender' with 'sex'.

There are two different words for a reason. It doesn't 'distort the issue', it clarifies the issue. Pretending that 'gender' means 'sex' is what distorts the issue. It's an attempt to 'win' by redefining terms in such a way that one cannot help but win.

It's the linguistic equivalent of declaring 'believer' to mean 'Evangelical Biblical Literalist Christian' and thus in one fell swoop making Catholics, Jews, most Protestants, Muslims, etc 'non-believers'.

This is incorrect. 'Gender', in English, had to do with grammar (e.g. 'he' and 'she' are 'gendered') until the 1950s and 1960s, when it was expanded to cover how one expresses behavior related to e.g. 'maleness', 'femaleness',

My 1963 edition Collins dictionary has the principal definition of 'gender' as 'Sex: male or female'. The secondary definition is to do with gendered languages.

That's as you'd expect. For most of its history, although the popularities of 'sex' versus 'gender' have waxed and waned, there was never a reason to suggest that, when applied to people, they weren't synonyms. That only happened when the technical term 'gender' broke out of the Sociology bubble.

It's likely that even today, many people are unaware that 'gender' has been repurposed in this way, and IMO that's the most likely reason for BDActive's study using the 'wrong' terminology.

As someone who is pro-trans, Rowling believes there are a range of genders.

Pretending that 'gender' means 'sex' is what distorts the issue. It's an attempt to 'win' by redefining terms in such a way that one cannot help but win.

We're well aware of your proficiency in the dark arts of sophistry. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? ;-)

These days, the trans-supremacists are the ones doing the conflating, so that they can get their preferred gender registered as their sex on official documents like passports and BMD registrations. I'm not sure how that will work. Some countries refuse to accept a visitor whose passport does not reflect their sex.

AJ

These days, the trans-supremacists are the ones doing the conflating, so that they can get their preferred gender registered as their sex on official documents like passports and BMD registrations. I'm not sure how that will work. Some countries refuse to accept a visitor whose passport does not reflect their sex.

This specific item is a conundrum, I agree. It's going to take work to solve it, and both extremes are (IMHO, of course), wrong.

On the one hand: of course, security and such may have a legitimate interest in knowing someone's biological sex. That is an important personal characteristic. Hiding it behind a mutable term such as 'gender' is a mistake, so simply putting 'gender' on a document is a problem.

On the other hand: why should every random stranger who touches a passport (many, in some countries) or other regular identification document know the intimate details of one's life story? If someone presents as stereotypically female, has a stereotypically female name, etc, why should they be 'outed' as transgender to every random clerk who needs such a document? That's an enormous invasion of privacy for no gain.

Somewhere, there's a compromise between giving up security or privacy. As long as the extremes are the only ones with opinions, though, no one's going to make any progress.

On the other hand: why should every random stranger who touches a passport (many, in some countries) or other regular identification document know the intimate details of one's life story? If someone presents as stereotypically female, has a stereotypically female name, etc, why should they be 'outed' as transgender to every random clerk who needs such a document? That's an enormous invasion of privacy for no gain.

1 - Anybody who thinks they're a different 'Gender' than their sex is clearly mentally unstable. Figuring out the mental stability of people at countries' borders is a security concern.

2 - How different would somebody presenting themselves as a woman while they're a man would be from some man trying to cross the border while wearing a batman suite along with a mask? They're both pretending to be somebody other that what they actually are. Do we allow fully masked people crossing the borders without having them take off their mask so that we can verify who they are? Pretending to be a woman and wearing feminine clothes doesn't make you woman more than wearing a batman mask makes you Bruce Wayne. They're both wearing a fake costume aimed to deceive. Arguing for one is no different from arguing for the other.

Just because the west has turned into an idiocracy doesn't mean the rest of the world should just fall in line.

Replying simply not to reply. I'm sure you know I believe the opposite, and that enormous numbers of people believe the opposite.

You are fully welcome to your opinion. We are fully welcome to our opinion.

Thank you for conceding that you can't argue against the logic.

I conceded no such thing. Misdefining words to mean what you want them to mean instead of how the majority of people use them isn't 'logic'. Creating a very silly strawman argument isn't 'logic' either.

I refuse to get into the specifics of this because of Lazeez' ban on political discussions on the forums. This is clearly a political topic; therefore, I will not reply further in respect for site policy.

I concede nothing to your 'logic', such as it is, and any lack of reply or refutation may not legitimately be construed as a concession.

I conceded no such thing.

Cop out.

Misdefining words to mean what you want them to mean instead of how the majority of people use them isn't 'logic'.

Kettle pot, pot kettle.

The left are the masters of misdefining/redefining words. What is a woman? [anything other than 'Adult human female' is a redefinition].

Creating a very silly strawman argument isn't 'logic' either.

I refuse to get into the specifics of this because of Lazeez' ban on political discussions on the forums.

Hiding behind your finger...

Bravo!

You know how to use a dictionary. Amazing!

Round of applause for you sir.

Now, you've gone and written a BUNCH of lousy, mostly-fallacious arguments and I've gone and rebutted them point by point.

With a bunch of fallacious arguments!

See, anybody can play this game.

You can jump up and down and stomp your feet until you're blue in the face, but the fact is that yours is just another opinion. An opinion that is misguided at best and malicious at worst.

If it were up to me, I would castrate any man pushing this shit at little kids and would skin the arm of any woman doing it too and build her a fake fallous out of it. What they're doing to kids is pure evil. Any mother that says that her 2 year-old is trans needs to be barred from any contact with her child.

At some point in the future the world will wake up and we'll look back in horror at the madness that is being spread in the west currently.

pushing this shit at little kids

The UK's biggest teaching union is protesting against government guidelines advising schools not to allow children to socially transition without the knowledge of their parents, even in primary schools.

Combining with other recent news:

"Good Morning children, I'm your teacher for the morning.

"How many of you are wearing nappies?

"Do any of you need changing yet?

"Who can write their own name?

"Who can count to twenty?

"Who can list the thirty seven genders?

:-)

AJ

Thirty seven genders

Six year olds wearing nappies to school

Teachers' union protesting against trans guidelines

It's depressing you're not clever enough to use Google or recognise a parody :-(

AJ

Combining with other recent news:

You seem to have missed that statement as well.

medical transitions is not discussed in the article

I didn't mention medical transitions:

advising schools not to allow children to socially transition

You really didn't bother to read anything I wrote, did you!

AJ

julka

I've decoded your nym. Bizarrely self-deprecating.

AJ

I have no idea what meaning you arrived at, sorry.

Don't worry, I haven't decoded your real name but I wouldn't announce that publicly even if I had.

AJ