danijelb

Typing without diacritics is also popular in Croatia in casual scenarios

This is very US-centric view. Most countries in the world don't have chip fabrication facilities in their country and they do just fine. Sure, US is currently a superpower whose influence is felt across the world so having chip manufacturing locally is very important, but in a scenario where US would lose some influence that would no longer be an issue, same as it is not an issue for Canada, Germany or Russia.

Even bigger problem might be your own content hosted on public squares. I wonder if Instagram/Fb/TikTok are declared a public square, does it mean that I can't delete someone's comment under my own photo, status or video because it violates their free speech even though it is my profile or page?

I think that Apple and Google should definitely be broken up or somehow regulated because they act as gatekeepers and there are no viable alternatives. Especially Apple where there is no way to even sideload an application. And I say this as an Apple user. But there's no guarantee what would happen even if there were five mobile platforms. In such parallel universe all five would maybe take the same action. However I don't think that other platforms which took some drastic actions last week are gatekeepers and I don't see a point in regulating them (Stripe, Twitter, AWS)

Regarding collecting money there should definitely be some government sponsored alternative solution for quick inter-bank transfers. In my country political parties collect donations by bank transfers. They provide an IBAN account number and anyone can send money to that account from any other bank in the EU. Same with private initiatives. Recently there was an earthquake in my home country which did some damage to a smaller city and most donation initiatives were collecting through bank accounts. The central bank runs the infrastructure for inter-bank communication (basically a clearing house). Right now they are working on a system where you will be able to associate your phone number and/or an email address to an IBAN (basically a DNS-like service) so you won't even need to know someone's IBAN to send them money.

That is true but from the perspective of the British it was illegal. I'm not sure that British companies would've provided services to revolutionaries while they literally try to overthrow the constitutional order of their country. Sure, they succeeded, got their independence, but when someone decides to literally fight against the country from the inside they shouldn't expect any company to be friendly to them or to offer them any services. As a matter of fact not even the government will be friendly, because they will do everything in their power to maintain order from their legal and constitutional perspective.

What happened on the Capitol had elements that lead to a conclusion that the goal was to stop legal procedures in the country, perhaps even taking elected representatives as hostages. This is different from any other type of "ordinary" riot. Luckily the people there didn't seem to be particularly skillful so they didn't manage to achieve anything. But they shouldn't expect that everyone will forget what they tried just because it failed. There needs to be a serious investigation first to determine how was it organized and what were the goals. Until this is known for sure, everyone should be really careful and that includes the right of companies to ensure their tools are not used for a potential violent government overthrow. What would happen to the revolutionaries if the American Revolution had failed? I'm pretty sure that the British wouldn't just forget it and pretend it didn't happen, even if they managed to stop it quickly before it got serious.

I have a feeling that at least half of people here are using the free market argument ironically. Because until last week it was usually republicans who advocated for the free market, no government regulation, and believing that markets sort themselves out magically. And now they are angry when the free market is going in the direction they don't like.

Looking at the size of alternative online communities like Parler, they're definitely not half of the voter base. Majority of republicans seem to not have a problem with mainstream platforms, only a small minority gets banned.

And it is really easy to see they are a minority. Most of alternative platforms like Parler have a small number of users and attract a very narrow audience which talks only about politics. Usually these sites have bad user experience which means there's not a lot of designers who would want to work for them, they are really bad in technical execution meaning there's not really many programmers who want to work for them. They don't advertise meaning there's not a lot of marketing experts wanting to work for them. There's not a lot of investors willing to invest in those platforms, no one wants to advertise on their sites. All this can lead to a conclusion that the users affected by deplatforming and censorship on mainstream social media is a really small group of people. They believe they are half of the voter base, while in reality the majority of society, from conservatives to liberals, rejects their world views and this is why they are marginalized.

If it was really half of the voter base they wouldn't have any issues. There would be some viable, popular alternative social media platforms used by that half of voter base. Among that half you'd have no issue with finding anything you need to have a widespead, catch-all platform - you'd find investors, you'd find companies willing to advertise, the user base would have diverse interests so that you can discuss anything on those platforms like on mainstream social media, and not just politics, conspiracy theories and memes. The fact that they constantly can't find support means that they are a fringe movement.

It's simply not possible that all investors, programmers, designers, hosting companies, payment processors, advertisers, etc. are all run by the left half of the voter base. That is simply statistically unlikely.

The reason I used the word "real" is probably because of my environment (ex-communist european country). I was born after the fall of communism, but of course the environment has a big influence on the lens through which you see things (family, friends, stories, history classes, etc.)

So when I see what is called censorship in US, it seems a bit funny and strange to me. I immediately think how people in my country during communism would be happy if only that was called censorship and if they had a possibility to use alternative channels to exercise free speech. But of course, I accept that this might be my biased eurocentric view of things and that from a different cultural perspective "real" means something else. Perhaps it will be like that even in Europe in a few years, who knows. We don't have much problems for now because we all use US social media and they don't really react to foreign languages, except a few universal "trigger" words like antivax. At least for smaller languages and countries (central and eastern europe)

> This seems like a fairly antiquated view that does not map well to the current era It very well could be. I grew up in Croatia, I was born right after Yugoslavia fell apart together with its communist regime, so I might be biased towards what I've heard about those times from older members of my family, my history classes, interaction with peers from both Croatia and other ex-communist countries in Europe through youth exchanges, etc, although I was lucky enough to be born in the right time to not live during that period. I'm pretty sure that my views on censorship, free markets, government intervetion, etc. were shaped by my environment. So every time that I read someone claiming that what we see in the US right now is censorship what comes to my mind is that people in Europe during communism would be happy if if was like that during their times.

I think the solution is to simply break the network effect by mandating a right to transfer your account and a guarantee of interoperability. This would reinvigorate the competition

In my opinion, the solution needs to be a guarantee of transfering your account to another provider. We can do it with phone numbers, we can do it with banks (at least in Europe). I don't see a reason why we couldn't apply the same on social media and auth providers.

Banned from "login with apple"? I should have a right to transfer my account to "login with google/facebook/my own server" and it should work. The same way I can call my friend when he transfers his phone number to another phone network.

Trump banned from Twitter? He should be able to transfer his account to Parler and I should still see his tweets in my Twitter feed, be able to retweet it to my followers, interact with it, etc. Twitter wouldn't be able to influence tweets from Parler so it would show in timeline. But they could decide to not display it in proprietary parts of their system (search, trending topics, whatever)

This way we would prevent echo chambers and deplatforming, while simultaneously allowing companies to maintain their freedom to moderate their own space.

I agree with breaking up companies which are monopolies/duopolies. But why do you think that those broken up companies wouldn't behave the same in this case (ban Trump, Parler, etc). If that's what the majority of users want, then such decisions increase their profit. If there was 5 mobile OS/store companies today, I'm pretty sure the same would happen on all 5.

So the government should be able to force your business to do something against your will? That doesn't sound like free market of which USA, and particularly conservatives, are so proud of.

Real censorship means that the government prosecutes you for speech, no matter where or how or to whom are you saying it. That was happening in parts of Europe from 1945 to 1990. This what is happening in USA right now is nowhere near that. It's just free market. If you're banned from a certain platform you can reach your audience in another way. No one is censoring your speech. It's just a certain company not wanting to serve a particular user. If it was actual censorship then you wouldn't be able to even print it on paper and distribute in your neighborhood.

Free speech != guaranteed access to a company providing access to a big audience

What is the alternative? Do you think that the government should nationalize private companies? Or perhaps they should dictate to them who should be their clients? If a company like Google doesn't want to do business with Parler, that is their right. That is free market. If the market didn't agree with it, the free market forces would make sure that Google dwindles and another company replaces them.

That's not what censorship means. Actual censorship, which was seen in Eastern and Central Europe and some other places during communism meant that you're literally not allowed to say certain things. You'd be prosecuted by the government if someone reported you or the government found out in any way that you were spreading certain kind of "forbidden" ideas. It didn't matter where you said it, when you said it, to how many people you said it, and if you used your own platform to say it or someone else's. It was simply not allowed.

What Americans call censorship is not that. Anyone who is banned from a particular platform still has freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want to whoever they want without the fear of government prosecution. If Twitter bans someone, it doesn't mean that the banned person can't speak somewhere else. Everyone has a right to moderate their private property which includes digital space. Although banned from Twitter and some other platforms, Trump didn't lose his freedom of speech. He can say whatever he wants. It's just that he will need an alternative way to reach a big audience because major companies specializing in providing big audiences don't want to provide him their services.

I think that we should look at phone numbers for the solution. I can call my friend on another phone network with no problem. My friend can transfer his number to a third company and I can still reach him on the same phone number. So the solution would need to be a standardized protocol and a guarantee that you can freely switch your whole account to a different provider.

Imagine if you're on Twitter and you can follow a person on Parler. Parler has a right to moderate their own private space however they want. Twitter has a right to moderate their space however they want. But - Twitter can't influence how others moderate their spaces.

So let's say that you are on Twitter and follow Trump on Twitter. Twitter decides to ban Trump. Trump should be able to migrate his account (with the username and profile history) to Parler and you, using Twitter would still magically follow him as before and would be able to read what he posts in your Twitter feed. Twitter would still be able to not show his tweets in their search, or their trending topics or any proprietary feature of the service, but if someone follows him explicitly, they'd still see his tweets in their timeline.

They are under a (false) impression that they are the majority and when everyone moves to Parler the broader audience will be on their platform. And twitter will become a place where the left is just talking to each other and agreeing. Of course, as we can all see the reality is completely opposite. On any conservative platform you'll find a narrow audience discussing only one thing - politics. And it's boring to discuss only politics, even to them.

I've been browsing thedonald.win today to see how his supporters are reacting to recent events, and that is one of the ways some users interpreted his tweet. Other than that, a ton of crazy theories. They literally take any two-three words from his tweets and make it mean whatever they want it to mean. To give you an example, in one of the recent tweets he put words "GIANT VOICE" in caps and they interpreted it as a reference to a military communication system with the same name. From that other people started theorizing how Trump will use the military system to circumvent the "big tech censorship" and deliver some dirty secrets about his "enemies"

So, looking from that perspective any tweet of any person could be taken down because some conspiracy theorist interpreted it in a particular way. And in their heads, this ban only gives them more "proof" that they are right.

That's just an excuse. I suspect the actual reason for banning him is for hundreds of tweets he made during the last four years for which a normal user would be banned, but he was protected against banning for "public interest" (read: additional traffic to Twitter). These two tweets are just a lame excuse. It would be better if they were honest about the reasons for the ban. But let's be real - no matter what he tweeted now at the end of his presidency he would be banned on Jan 20th. They just sped up the decision a little bit because of what happened few days ago.

That's the beauty of the free markets. You can always compete. The problem is that alternative social networks such as Parler don't have wide enough audience as Twitter. But that's also an effect of the free market. If there were enough people who value having access to the kind of content which can be found on Parler then it would be more popular. Twitter is simply catering to the majority of consumers.

The market interest for networks like Parler, Gab, Voat, Thedonald.win, etc. is simply too small for any of them to succeed. Their audience is also too narrow, it's just politics and almost no discussion about anything else. If a ton of people would suddenly move to Parler it would mean the majority wants it and Twitter would respond by enabling the kind of content they are banning now.

I might be wrong because I'm not an American, but the way I understand the free speech is that it guarantees the government can't punish you for saying something. It doesn't guarantee your speech a right to have instant reach to millions of people. Facebook "censoring" someone is no different than a newspaper in the 20th century deciding to not publish your letter, or a book publisher refusing to publish your book, or a store owner removing your graffiti from their window. You had a right in 20th century to say anything you want to whomever you wanted. If you wanted to reach a ton of people at the same time, you either built that reach manually or you had to convince someone (TV, radio, book publisher) to help you. And it is the same today. You can say whatever you want to a friend, coworker, family member. And you can also say whatever you want to every citizen in the USA. But you're not guaranteed a right of any company to help you in that endeavor. If Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, Paypal don't want to help you in reaching people it is their right to do so. Youtube blocked you? Make your own website. Amazon doesn't want to sell your book? Print it yourself.

Claiming that Facebook or Twitter deleting someone's content is censorship because you have a right for your speech to have a huge reach would mean that there was no free speech anytime in history, except for a brief period of time when social media appeared before they started "censoring"

When I was using a trial of Hey email, I received an email about trial expiration and a link to upgrade to paid plan if I want to continue using it. When clicking the link, it opened in the in-app browser and you could enter your credit card details right inside. Idk if that's permitted by Apple or not, but if not, then Hey was lucky Apple didn't notice it.

However, I don't see how that can be solved. An email provider has every right to send an email to a customer informing them about anything, including a trial expiration and if that email contains a link, it is handled like a link from any other email in the app. It would be really silly for Apple to ask the provider to censor their user's inbox and hide a particular email they received.

> They simply want to better target their offerings to their customers

They can do it without the cookie notice. For example, Amazon can track what I'm looking at on their site and what I'm buying and store it to their database. They can use this information to offer me what they think I'll like. Also, another user-friendly approach would be for a site to ask me to select categories/topics that I like. Whatever it is, GDPR gives me a right to export the data, review it, and ask for it to be deleted if I don't want the site to have it anymore. No need for cookies in this scenario. What they need cookies for is when one site wants to track what I do on other sites.

> allow for you to keep items in a shopping cart

This is a functional cookie and there's no need to ask for consent to store a shopping cart. This is just a perfidious argument that data tracking companies use to ridicule the law.

> Could it simply be that, most businesses put cookie popups on their sites because they don't want to get fined? Not because they are embroiled in an elaborate scheme to undermine the law? Not because they are embroiled in an elaborate scheme to undermine the law?

The law is very clear about when you need to ask for consent and when you don't need to ask for consent. Most sites implement it in a wrong way, many of them use deliberate dark patterns, for example, when you deny cookies you get a loading spinner that spins for a couple of minutes. These are all attempts to condition the user into avoiding pressing the "slow" button.

Is it ok to skip ad pages in printed magazines? Or to switch a TV channel during commercials?

People tend to forget that websites are just documents. Especially those who are not deeply familiar with the web technology. So, to those who are not aware, I'd like to add: web is nothing more than a protocol in which a user requests a document, and a server generates and returns a text response. It is up to the user what they will do with this text response. For example, they may open it in a browser which parses special tags and turns it into a nice visual page. They also can choose to open it in a browser which cherry-picks which tags to parse and which tags not to parse. They can also just read it as an unparsed text. This is simply how web was designed.

It's a person who illegally crossed the border with a goal to live in a country where they can't live legally

One thing that always surprises me is the inability of many Americans to accept that the whole world is not US. We are simply not fighting the political and racial battles that they have. In order to be a citizen in a globalized world, one has to be able to see things from perspectives of different societies, not impose their own perspective on everyone. I agree that the original comment about racial diversity makes sense in US and I would completely agree with it if the site was about US or similar countries where there are significant visually-distinguishable minorities. However, it simply doesn’t make sense in Lithuania. Also in many other EU members

It is not an Asian country, but it is a country where both the majority (Lithuanians) and minorities (mostly people from other European countries) visually look the same. You can distinguish them by languages they speak, which is something we cannot infer from photos on the website.

For example, I am a Croatian expat in Czech Republic. The only way Czechs figure out I'm not one of them is when they try to talk to me in Czech. Tell me how to represent that in a photo.

I would also be a minority in US, but no one would consider me as one only because I'm white. And that's called being racist.

"Main minority groups include Poles 234,989 (6.7%), Russians 219,789 (6.3%), Belarusians 42,866 (1.2%), Ukrainians 22,488 (0.7%) and Jews 4,007 (2001 census data)."

(https://minorityrights.org/country/lithuania/)

So, how did you figure out from the photos that those people are not among Lithuanian minorities?