Alt-right apps, sites and people weren’t banned for associating with the wrong crowd, they were banned for their role in trying to overthrow the government.
Apple's ecosystem may not be right for you. It's widely known to be curated, and it seems the majority of Apple users appreciate the curation. It's possible you didn't know the state of the ecosystem when you purchased the device and agreed to the terms, and it's unfortunate you only had 14 days to discover it before the return window closed, if you purchased directly from Apple. Perhaps they will make an exception for you. I've heard they occasionally allow returns outside of that window. Some people have luck selling their devices, and report they retain high resale value.
Non sequitur: My first VCR was a BetaMax. We got it on sale without knowing much about the technology. Once we had it a few days, I really wished it handled VHS tapes, as that's all the movie rental stores had. We returned it.
Any user that wants to could continue using Apple's curated store and apps, regardless of anyone else sideloading... just like the average Android user.
That has nothing to do with them going out of their way to make it impossible to sideload anything.
Apple preventing me from installing a social network by some group people don't like is akin to Ford not letting my car drive to a store owned by people they don't like. Do you think I should have to find a different car manufacturer to drive where I want?
The iPhone is more like a train than a car. Off-tracking, let alone off-roading, is technically prevented. It’s sort of a buyer-beware situation. I get that you’re unhappy with their chosen business model, design decisions and implementation. The natural remedy in a capitalist system is to choose an alternate product from a different manufacturer. You’re free to petition them of course, but the decision remains theirs. Or maybe you can petition the creation of laws to outlaw their business model. But of your three options, the first seems most expedient and reliable.
You intentionally bought a phone with an operating system that intentionally controls what apps are allowed to be on it.
You don't have much of an argument here. No one is forcing you to buy that.
You don't even have the argument that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone mart. There is a readily available alternative in Android. Android allows you to install whatever you want.
No they were banned for going against the democrat-left establishment. After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
There were no endless attacks on federal property, and there was no organized movement to disturb the peaceful transition of power, nor overthrowing a democratically elected government. Don't peddle lies.
> There were no endless attacks on federal property
It is still happening in 2021 and has been documented previously for months, even after the election. Typical examples here [0][1]. Many more found on Twitter.
So are you now going to stop gaslighting and peddling lies?
I'm not seeing these people trying to kidnap Senators. I'm not seeing an organized movement to stop a democratic transition of power, nor incitement by the President in favor of such actions, not people walking with guns threatening the lives of others. Vandalism, sure? Are you going to stupidly compare one thing with another?
Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
“Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
The mayor of Portland was being accosted at his home (so much so he moved) and while out in public having dinner (just this past week). Is that not intimidating and threatening our elected leaders?
The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
Why the double standard? Why is arson and looting by Antifa given the benefit of the doubt and called “protesting”, while, when the right riots and causes disruption we go right to using words like “coup” and “sedition” and suddenly need to start creating new laws to stop it?
> Your hand waving is not very convincing. I mean Antifa setup it’s own autonomous zone in Seattle, effectively overthrowing the gov’ts authority (albeit on a small and temporary scale). People were killed there. Is this that not sedition or at least a direct attempt to usurp the gov’ts authority?
Were people actually concerned that this movement was going to blow out into a full-on anarchist revolt? Was this based on an idea of an all-out violent revolution? This is the only example where they may be a slight point and even so I'm not seeing an explicit call to join into this being amplified.
> “Protestors” took over a Seattle City Hall and demanded the mayor resign. Is that not disrupting the legitimate legislative process? Isn’t that attempting to force a legitimately elected official out of office?
Were they coming in with guns? Did they organize multiple days in advance with the idea of kidnapping legislators? This sounds like infrequent but very much run-on-the-mill instance of protesting.
> The point is the left said nothing about about all this violence and rioting and in some cases encouraged it. Said “it was legitimate anger” and therefore authorities shouldn’t try and stop it.
This is not true, and I'm the sort of person that consumes news from people who are not in favor of the current system. The critique was the violent overreaction of police forces and the fact that while they're getting rubber bullets in the head, actually seditious traitors that stormed the Capitol get coddled and kindly asked to leave.
_That_ is the double standard. The US has a history of allowing violence by white majorities, visible and obvious in the favorable treatment by police forces and legislators, while disproportionally repressing other forces. The deescalation is reserved for seditionists and white supremacists.
> ...After a summer of rioting and endless attacks on federal property let's dispense with the clutching of pearls that this is something new.
You (What I quoted):
> There were no endless attacks on federal property...
You have just lied in that first claim after the fact that the grandparent comment was referencing the summer violence of last year that still continues to this day and that is what I quoted in my comment which is still happening today. Never began to compare anything or started to.
So before you gaslight everyone again, are you now going to stop peddling lies?
There were millions of people in the streets, and the number of violent events was disproportionately small, and was an _excuse_ used by unaffiliated people to loot. To this date there is no association between BLM protesters at large and any willful intent to cause damage at scale or destabilize democracy.
We are living on different planets. This perspective being is being pushed solely by people who hate trump and his supporters. It’s clearly not true, and it blurs the lines around what happened. If it were true, there would be an actual civil war.
Claiming this only serves to increase the ever-widening divide in our country. There appear to have been thousand of people at the protest (I haven’t listened to any pundits yet, so unsure of the exact estimate), and a small handful participated in this disappointing display.
