I didn't realize that people assume that. I rarely access the internet on my phone. I've never liked laptops, and prefer sitting at my desk with my big curved monitor.
Posted on 05/03/2020 8:05:09 PM PDT by Notthemomma
iPhone and iPad users (Apple) and Android users (Google) are now blocked from using the GunBroker app on smart phones and pads to bid on or buy firearms, and the two tech giants have removed the GunBroker app from their stores.
GunBroker discussed this sudden change in the link from 4/27/20 and updated 5/3/20. Both Apple and Google made the anti-gun restriction by saying GunBroker violated their guidelines, specifically, by "facilitating the sale or purchase of firearms." The apps can apparently still be used, for now, to search for and review items for sale, and perhaps also to post items for sale, but bids and purchases have to be done on GunBroker's internet website, GunBroker.com. Again, for now.
I cannot begin to say how utterly disgusted I am at the insane decision by Apple and Android to restrict this basic 2nd amendment activity, namely, the legal buying and selling of firearms on smart device apps, by this well-established and totally legal entity.
All firearms bought on GunBroker and shipped across state lines absolutely have to go through a Federal Firearms License holder on the receiving end, and frequently involve an FFL holder on both ends, with background checks on the buyer as required by Federal and local laws, before a gun purchaser can take possession of a gun. Even for guns not shipped across state lines, all local and state gun laws must be met before a gun bought on GunBroker can be transferred to the buyer. To hinder such above-board and thoroughly legal activity by law-abiding citizens is nothing short of pure anti-gun censorship and infringement of a basic and constitutionally guaranteed right.
GunBroker, from my perusing of its site, has done more than 865 MILLION transactions to date for all sorts of items, sold from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses, from guns to ammo to knives to parts to camping and outdoor gear, etc. etc. etc., all legally and in the open. This has generated tons of income for people and businesses, and allowed many, many sporting enthusiasts to find the items they've been wanting and needing, for their hobbies and livelihoods. And if they've done it to GunBroker, it won't be long before they do it to other similar sites, and to gun forums that use Tapatalk or other mobile apps.
This action is the same as the social media blocking or banning conservative, or pro-firearm, or anti-abortion, or pro-Trump content/users they do not like, because such thought does not mirror their liberal or progressive ideological agendas. Yes, these are private entities that may not have to protect constitutional rights of their users, and yes the hindered activities can still be done in some other fashion, just not as easily and not as mainstream, but that is in fact the goal of the tech giants and social media!
Shame on Apple and Google for falling into this evil liberal attack on America, all because, you know, "guns."
https://support.gunbroker.com/hc/en-us/articles/225068787-Mobile-Aps-Mobile-Site-Use
From the link:
Apple / Iphone / Ipad Unfortunately, Apple has removed our app from their store. They state our app violates their guidelines. Here is what they told us:
"Apple has removed your App since it violates our guidelines. Specifically, this item:
1. Safety When people install an app from the App Store, they want to feel confident it’s safe to do so— that the app doesn’t contain upsetting or offensive content, won’t damage their device, and isn’t likely to cause physical harm from its use. We’ve outlined the major pitfalls below, but if you’re looking to shock and offend people, the App Store isn’t the right place for your app.
1.1 Objectionable Content Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, or in exceptionally poor taste. Examples of such content include: 1.1 (removed) 1.2 (removed) 1.3 Depictions that encourage illegal or reckless use of weapons and dangerous objects, or facilitate the purchase of firearms."
Access to Apple’s complete guidelines is available here: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Google / Android
Unfortunately, Google has removed our app from their store. They state our app violates their guidelines. Here is what they told us:
"After review, GunBroker.com, com.gunbroker.android has been suspended and removed from Google Play due to a policy violation.
Issue: Violation of Dangerous Products policy We don't allow apps that facilitate the sale of explosives, firearms, ammunition or certain firearms accessories. We also don’t allow apps that provide instructions for the manufacture of explosives, firearms, ammunition, restricted firearm accessories, or other weapons."
funny how it is assumed everyone only uses their phones for everything internet, and don’t have computers
I know desktops are pretty much obsolete, but laptops many people have.
I have noticed the younger generations use their phones for everything, and only have a lap top or tablet if they are going to school/college etc.
Why would anyone need an app for say, facebook or twitter?
both work fine without getting their apps
when using twitter on my phone, I used to be asked to get their app
I never did, and twit worked just fine
then after a while, I noticed I DID have the twit app, even
though I never agreed to get it.
Bad analogy. AT&T was regulated in exchange for being granted anti-trust exemptions.
As for cell phones the FCC doesn't regulate business practices or terms of service.
To the extent the FCC does regulate them their authority comes from the cell companies' use of the publicly owned airwaves and radio spectrum.
Needless to say, internet based voice services like Skype, WhatsApp, FB Messanger, FaceTime, etc. aren't regulated at all.
They allow the majority of the public to upload communications, and they restrict it for anyone who expresses a position or opinion they think should be banned.
Only after the person doing the uploading agrees to their contract (TOS) which sets the terms for use of the service, including the terms under which the owner of the platform can refuse to post their content.
If the person doesn't like the terms they can go post elsewhere.
Communications systems utilized by the *PUBLIC* cannot be "private property".
Again, why is it only a subset of communications companies that are subject to this?
As Roberts said "No one can be allowed to own the law."
And he meant it literally. The law was created and paid for by the public so you can't restrict access.
YouTube wasn't.
So if a cell phone company started cutting off service to Homosexuals and other assorted Liberal perverts, you think the FCC would twiddle it's thumbs?
Only after the person doing the uploading agrees to their contract (TOS) which sets the terms for use of the service, including the terms under which the owner of the platform can refuse to post their content.
Terms of service which discriminate should be no more legally valid than "no blacks allowed" signs in restaurants.
So far as I"m concerned, all opinions should have equal rights on all communications systems.
If the person doesn't like the terms they can go post elsewhere.
Blacks can go find another restaurant that serves them.
Again, why is it only a subset of communications companies that are subject to this?
So far as i'm concerned, it should apply to *ALL* communications companies that serve the public. Everyone should have equal rights.
The law was created and paid for by the public so you can't restrict access.YouTube wasn't.
Uh yeah, it was. The internet was created by government funding. Meaning public funding. YouTube can't work without the internet, which requires interstate commerce and numerous other government agencies to make it happen, including the FCC.
It requires government approval and cooperation to keep it working. If Google wants to censor content, they need to be denied the internet, or any other government controlled communications infrastructure.
assume could be the wrong word to use there
From what I observe from the younger ppl, college down to 2 yr olds, most use their phones for everything
Even some I know of approaching middle age use their phones primarily.
Sitting around w/20-30 family members and friends it’s the phones.
I’m amazed at what they can do with their phones.
Heck I couldn’t even go on one of those zoom or whatever on Easter where I THINK many of my family members participated.
Petty soon the phones will be in eyeglasses and controlled by thought...heh
I transisted to mainly laptopo when my desk top crashed.
I got it fixed, but found it was to klunky.
It wasn’t easy to move to a laptop, but I have.
Stupid analogies are stupid.
Analogies people don't like they will often characterize as "stupid."
I think you need to look at the bigger picture. If only the voices of liberals may be heard, then they will use this power to marginalize conservatives. Conservatives will become second class citizens, and they will be marginalized.
The Jews are an example of this happening before in history, and everyone is familiar with it. Had there been other voices to oppose Hitler, he never would have acquired the power he acquired. Of course he took immediate steps to insure that no opposition opinion was ever allowed to reach the German people.
Most dictators do this.
Google is left wing. It is inherently socialist/fascist, and if we continue allowing it to get away with censoring public speech, our movement will continue losing power and influence until the point it is safe to attack us without repercussions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.