Hacker News Reader

Comment by Keverw | Hacker News Reader

What happens if you were banned from Facebook (for example political censorship or other possible reasons I can't think of off the top of my head)? Is your Oculus device bricked and useless? I'm a fan of Oculus, but this is a bit of a turn off. But I guess if Apple makes their own VR headset, they probably require an Apple account but Apple isn't really a social network so feel less of a risk, same for Microsoft's Mixed Reality headsets too I'd imagine.

Then your purchases and stuff are lost too, I guess as WebXR matures though maybe there will be some great apps you can just pay directly for on the web, but I feel like if rumors of Apple making a headset they'll just skip WebXR and force the app store... I know other headsets including the Oculus supports WebXR but sorta feels like it's a conflict of interest to their own stores to me so wonder how much more advanced it'll get.

View on HN

Apple is now using the notarization system on desktop to ban apps from companies that broke iOS App Store rules, so you could for instance get your drone strike death toll app that was making a political statement taken down and lose your desktop notarization (which was supposed to be about security only) on a totally unrelated app in retaliation.

Yeah seen that Apple is doing that for Epic's Fortnight. Won't be able to sign for Mac, but people could still install it if they turn off gatekeeper which I doubt many people would mess with, been a while since I've done that myself since I use dev tools. I think now on Catalina and newer Mac versions even more steps. Used to be a checkbox, but I think you have to use the terminal now?

Never really worked with Unreal but wonder if this will affect other games using their engine, not sure if there's like signed dylibs and stuff.

All this security stuff is cool but in a way more control. It's like you paid all this money for something but in a way you don't really own it. Like some graphic card company sells graphic cards including server graphic cards, but their driver's EULA doesn't allow you to use your desktop cards for server use. I guess the hardware being used 24/7 wasn't designed for that, but sounds like they should deny your warranty then instead of turning it into a copyright issue. Some game streaming company ran into this problem.

If you Option-click an app, it gives you the option to run the app even if it's not signed. No disabling of Gatekeeper required.

Oh yeah right click open too. I’ve done that before but thought maybe I’ve disabled Gatekeeper in the past on my machine.

Discoverability for that is hell, though. If you don't already know about it from a friend, finding out your app isn't a virtual paperweight requires going down a knowledgebase rabbit hole: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116

VR adult games is a growing genre. These are real time games and as the tech gets better they can be much more engaging than a static video.

If Apple's device can't run them will that be significant in their adoption?

On topic, it's a reason not to own an FB VR device as I really don't want FB knowing which apps I run (nor do I want Apple knowing which apps I run for that matter)

oh yeah heard VR Porn is a thing haha, never looked into it. Then remember hearing that the VCR won because the porn industry liked it more. I got a feeling Apple will ban those sort of apps unless they support WebXR... but kinda like with iOS PWA and other APIs support is lacking a bit in Safari compared to Android or Chrome. I know there's concerns Apple will dump WebGL since they deprecated OpenGL, but they should be able to create a shim on top of the metal APIs, since that was done for DirectX on Windows.

This creates a chilling effect which puts my first ammendment rights at risk as an American, and it should be (and probably is if anyone actually bothered to correctly interpret the law anymore) illegal.

Facebook is a private corporation. The first amendment has no bearing on how Facebook decides to operate their business.

We're talking about an open social platform which half the world's population uses, so it's effectively a public space and the fact that a simple political opinion could be enough to cancel my account means that when hundreds of dollars are on the line, my voice may be effectively silenced.

It's a huge problem and even if you don't realize it now, it is going to be a huge political issue in the future.

And it has a simple solution, albeit an unsavory one to many of America's more free-market minded persons: If they are effectively a public space, then nationalize them and make it official.

That will never happen. The politician that sets it up will be voted out in the next election and everything he's done will be undone. Even as progressive as I am I will never vote for anyone who wants to nationalize a private company. That's what the CCP does, not America.

If America is unwilling to stomach nationalizing a private company, but will stomach privatizing a previously public domain, where do you think that's going to land us?

I agree with everything you said, but the fact remains that the US constitution defines what the US government can do, and Facebook is not a part of the US government. The first amendment does not have anything to do with the policies Facebook may choose to create and enforce on their private platform.

That doesn’t make it a first amendment problem. There’s only one legal case where private property was ruled to be subject to the 1st amendment - a company town where even the roads and sidewalks were owned by the company.

In contrast, if you don’t want to use or get banned from facebook, you can still communicate via SMS/MMS, google chat, email, GnuSocial/ActivityPub, twitter, and dozens of other options.

Actually, banning companies from moderating is probably a first amendment problem in the opposite direction - you’re forcing them to associate with you.

It's not that simple, and I hate it when it's inconsistent.

For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say. But do other people get such protections?

In my country, Romania, the supreme court declared that Facebook is a public space, so if you say something like "the police can blow me" you'll get a letter from the police telling you so show up at the station so that they can fine you (swearing is illegal in Romania).

But Facebook can take down something I can say in public, meaning I'm not allowed free speech. It's not fair that I suffer all the consequences of a "public space", but none of the rights.

For example, even in the US, courts have established that Twitter is a public forum with respect to what politicians (such as Trump) say

IANAL but the court said Trump couldn't block you from his twitter account because his use of his feed made it a public forum. This was about Trump, not twitter. Twitter, AFAIK, wasn't forced to unblock the accounts trump had blocked.

This has zero to do with the 1st amendment. That is between you and the government. You have not such 1st amendment rights when dealing with a private company. All you can do with facebook is either do as they tell you, or drop them. There's not much middle ground.

And at one time, the 1st amendment didn't even exist. Then, the argument was, "You don't even have freedom of speech, so don't bother". Just wait and see, eventually a case will reach the Supreme Court which will make us finally face facts that you can only blur the lines so much when dealing with private companies operating large-scale and general social platforms. After a certain point, it's a public forum and your rights should be equally protected if Facebook is to operate in your jurisdiction.

>What happens if you were banned from Facebook

Your social credit goes down, of course

Reply on news.ycombinator.com