there's a difference between not allowing very harmful hatespeech and saying something like "I saw a cop at this address"
yes, the web exists, and while it's not functionally preventing all possible phone access to the app, it's increasing the barrier to entry in a way that meaningfully massively reduces its use
the difference is there is an implicit call to violence there and it's private people, not representatives of the government.
the idea behind the ICE agent tracking is to avoid them. you don't need to avoid abortion providers, they're not sneaking up on people on the street and giving them abortions.
someone doesnt need ICE tracking apps to attack ICE agents, they're wearing vests with giant "ICE" text on them. that someone allegedly misused the app in this way is like saying we need to ban knives because someone used one to stab someone else
I have no problem saying that good things are good and bad things are bad. The idea that nobody is allowed to have content preferences is ridiculous and not actually a thing that anybody believes.
Most people also seemed to celebrate Parler and Gab being pulled/denied. It was perfectly obvious that the same logic could be used to do things like this, but many people seem to be totally surprised or oblivious.
We've had multiple leaks and reports that the government was directly involved in these censorship cases prior to January 20, 2025. So no, that's not the difference.
On this very forum, people (not you) argued it was perfectly acceptable because the government was only "asking", not requiring.
Unfortunately, the civil libertarians have been drowned out for years by people who believed that it was right to do whatever it took to shut down right-wingers/misinformation/disinformation/hate speech/Russian propaganda/conspiracy theorists/Hunter laptop posters/whatever. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are shocked and outraged, even as they built the tools, institutions, mechanisms, and political support used to do this.
