[SurceBeats]

The ICEBlock removal is absurd when you consider Waze has been warning drivers about police locations for... Years? The only difference is which government agency is being monitored. This sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of ToS really

[dragonwriter]

Both that removal and Google's removal of other ICE tracking apps on the basis that a government paramilitary enforcement force (much less one involved in executing an ethnic cleansing) constituted a “vulnerable group” goes beyond “dangerous precedent”, a description which implies that an act is not harmful in itself but only in what it may normalize down the road.

[stinkbeetle]

What an astounding and completely unforeseeable surprise, the old "they're a private company, they can do what they want [and if they are pressured by the government through back-channels and veiled threats, that's fine too]" is coming back around. Never thought that would happen ever.

[deaux]

> This sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of ToS really

This is selective enforcement of ToS?

It's like saying "pardoning a human trafficker sets a dangerous precedent for pardoning human traffickers".

[ab5tract]

Yes, this is what we do say when human traffickers are pardoned.

[jbstack]

How can you set a precedent for doing something without doing that thing? Here's a dictionary definition for precedent: "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances."

[RajT88]

> This sets a dangerous precedent

Quite a lot of things this statement applies to lately.

[lovich]

> This sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of ToS really

It’s only a dangerous precedent if you believe your opponents will ever gain power. If you believe your political opponents will never have power again, then who cares about precedent?

[potato3732842]

>It’s only a dangerous precedent if you believe your opponents will ever gain power. If you believe your political opponents will never have power again, then who cares about precedent?

And that kind of thinking in years past is EXACTLY why we're here annoyed by dozens of organizations having and using power they probably ought not to.

[pigeons]

Well, still dangerous for the people its used against.

[lostlogin]

Missing this point is alarming.

[hsbauauvhabzb]

It’s possible loveich does not morally agree with their own post, but are providing it as an opposing view.

[potato3732842]

I think his post is meant to be interpreted about like holding up a mirror in response to "who done this?".

[degamad]

> if you believe your opponents will ever gain power.

Or are already in power.

[jfim]

> This sets a dangerous precedent for selective enforcement of ToS really

Companies can enforce their terms of service as they see fit, including enforcing them selectively or not at all, with very few limitations. They're not bound by precedent as courts would be, nor do they need to be fair.

[matthewdgreen]

Leaving aside the obvious governmental influence in this “private company’s decision”, we, as a democratic society, have the right to decide when and if the two major smartphone OS makers have the right to ban apps. We even have the right to decide whether those exclusive app stores should exist. Whatever I thought about this matter before, my feelings are different after this decision.

[vorpalhex]

Do we, a democratic society, have a right to pick your breakfast?

Can we force you into a career?

Can we force you to right a book?

What if you work with a few people? Can we compel you to right a book then?

What if you work with a lot of people, a few thousand? Can we make you write a book in that case?

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>Do we, a democratic society, have a right to pick your breakfast?

Well, you can pick your friends. And you can pick your nose.

But you can't pick your friend's nose. In a democratic society, that is.

[int_19h]

Corporations are creations of a democratic society. A corporate charter is granted. As such, it can and does come with strings attached, which can include rules such as "you are not allowed to do this", so long as rules and their conditions are uniformly applied.

[sixothree]

> Do we, a democratic society

Can we say that if we only have two app stores and both are controlled by the government?

[Anonbrit]

Should that be true for a monopoly service though? I don't believe it's true for water, electricity companies. It's not tried for health insurance companies under the ACA. Are we teaching the point where technology should be treated similarly?

[shantara]

Apple removed the apps used by Hong Kong protesters on Chinese government’s request. It’s way past the point of pretending that this situation is somehow unforeseen. Two private companies have inexcusable control over what the entire population can do with their devices

[potato3732842]

I want to believe that the top level comment is satire that perfectly threaded the needle and is indistinguishable from the morons it's ridiculing.

[lostlogin]

> This sets a dangerous precedent

This is a dangerous president.

[potato3732842]

But never mind all those incremental precedents we helped set along the way. /s

It's a staircase, not a cliff.

[pjc50]

The real precedent for this is the removal of the drone strikes tracker app on the grounds that it was "political". https://tech.yahoo.com/general/articles/apple-finally-approv...

Which predates Trump and was happening under the Obama presidency. The real lesson there is that the application of the Jack Bauer principle ("good guys" are allowed to freely torture and murder "bad guys" without legal process) would eventually leak back into the mainland US. The same excuse - the concept that foreigners do not have rights - enables ICE to be incredibly abusive. And of course citizenship then becomes something that can be taken away by such a trivial matter as a cop deciding to throw away your ID. You might be able to prove you're a citizen if you had due process, but now you're a noncitizen you're not entitled to that.

[duxup]

Every time I report a speed trap I wonder how long it will be until that feature is removed.

[was8309]

I think police may not mind Waze, they may care more about drivers that are truly dangerous and are fine with filtering out hose that are signalling that they are paying attention and showing respect by slowing down when police are present

[port11]

I think in Europe speed traps have to be signalled beforehand? I'm not sure if that's the case everywhere but the signs are usually there, so perhaps that's why such a feature is allowed to exist.

[jrs235]

They'll leave it on the UI, it just won't actually do anything. People will mostly be none the wiser.

[duxup]

I'd notice over time when if never got any speed trap notifications anymore.

[jrs235]

They'll just report speed traps 30 minutes after no reports for the previous 30 minutes. Then you'll think you were one of the first to come up on them when you see them on the side of the road and think they moved on when you see a report on your map but no cars around.

[duxup]

Naw if I got repeated reports and nobody there, over time I'd be suspicious.

[charcircuit]

I think they are different in that:

1. People are not harassing traffic enforcement, like they are harassing immigration enforcement.

2. Waze's information incentivizes people to follow traffic laws more deligently than they would which results in safer driving conditions for other people driving. ICEBlock did not have the benefit of making people follow immigration law better, or turn themselves in faster.

[throwawayqqq11]

Avoiding traffic controls is no solution to reckless driving. Like surveilance cameras, they only move the crime elsewhere.

What you need is a gapless panopticon so that every suspect feels like being at the verge of getting caught, to enforce eg. traffic laws.

ICE does not target criminal behavior though. They literally disappear people based on appearance and any criminal record. Such a panopticon is an entirely different beast.

[Yeul]

It really is that bad. They put illegal immigrants on military transport planes to South Sudan. And how are those poor people supposed to get back home?

[saubeidl]

Immigrants with no criminal record now largest group in ICE detention: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/26/immigrants-c...

ICE Agents Rappel from Helicopter in Overnight Chicago Raid, Dragging Kids from Beds to U-Hauls: https://people.com/ice-agents-overnight-chicago-raid-1182308...

Feds detain WGN-TV staffer, slam into resident’s car in Lincoln Square: https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/10/feds-arr...

We Found That More Than 170 U.S. Citizens Have Been Held by Immigration Agents. They’ve Been Kicked, Dragged and Detained for Days: https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...

Videos of violent ICE interactions flood social media: https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/ice-agents-violent-...

This is not "immigration enforcement".

It's paramilitary thugs beating up and disappearing political opponents. The closest equivalent would be the SA.

[chung8123]

I forgot where I heard this quote but it stuck out to me, especially after the election where so many just didn't vote. "if the left won't protect the border a fascist will"

I think the small percentage of the far left that feels like it is ok to have immigrants here that are not following the rules of immigration and the small percentage of the right that feel it is ok to violate our constitution to stop these immigrants have taken over while the big middle just watches with their jaws open at what is happening.

[vorpalhex]

Wow I'm really glad they got the 15,000 illegal immigrants who had criminal charges. I'm also fine that the 16,000 people here illegally have to go back home.

Why were 30ish kids naked in an apartment building illegally? That sure sounds a whole lot like human trafficking, especially if the men arrested all had criminal records and gang affiliation.

Wow intentionally blocking a federal vehicle transporting a prisoner sure shoulds like interfering with law enforcement.

And in getting 30,000+ illegal immigrants into ICE custody, they've only detained 170 people? 130 of those were with criminal charges? That seems like a very low number.

This sounds exactly like immigration enforcement. Who are the politicians being rounded up? Who are the "political opponents" here? Not the 30,000 illegal immigrants who can't vote. Not the 130 citizens who committed a felony against agents.