Hacker News Reader

Comment by snthpy | Hacker News Reader

Seems legit. These topics should not form any part of work or government. What you do in your own time is of course completely up to you, as with any other NSFW content.

View on HN

The US Constitution's First Amendment protects religion from government. There is no amendment protecting porn or gratuitous violence. Marking the religious apps as NSFW may be a violation of the First Amendment and could potentially be challenged in court, to a potentially huge sum of money and F-Droid's potential detriment.

The First Amendment does not apply to fucking app stores. It applies to the government and only to the government. That does include the government leaning on people, but it does not include editorial or curation decisions made by totally private organizations.

If you tried to take your position to a court in the US, even now, you'd be treated as a frivolous litigant... which, to be clear, means being told to fuck off and not come back.

Please stop posting this kind of ignorance. It burns.

The Soviet Union had freedom of speech too. It's just that you didn't have freedom after the speech was the problem.

I honestly cannot figure out what you are trying to say here. I don't think you can either.

Nobody is throwing anybody in prison, nor threatening to.

One of the reasons the First Amendment applies only to the government is that, unlike an app store, it can throw people in prison.

My point is that the letter of the First Amendment and the spirit of the First Amendment are at odds when faced with modern day reality. Between government and corporations, and being fined, vs being put in prison, it's all up for debate. We can look at the letter of the First Amendment and twist and turn it to come to a definition that the courts can agree on, but stepping back from that, the bigger picture is the people are trying to speak and that this entity that isn't the government, is restricting that, with downstream effects. You're right that the First Amendment doesn't apply to app stores run by a private corporation. It's still a restriction on speech by a large organization against an individual, and the freedom of speech gives people the right to complain about it.

If you were talking about Apple or Google, you might have a point, although you would be better off to talk about "freedom of speech", since "the First Amendment" refers to a very specific piece of legal text (and one that nobody has actually ever said should apply to app stores).

But we're talking about F-Droid here. It has a tiny market share. It uses software that lets literally anybody else set up a repository and have it appear integrated in the same app. It doesn't benefit from any of the legal or social advantages given to large corporations. F-Droid, unlike Apple or Google, can't in fact do much to limit anybody's speech.

It's fair to point out fdroid's drastically smaller market share, but in an effort to avoid"meet the new boss, same as the old.boss" I still think it's worthwhile to point out the levers of power and systems involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com