41–50 of 72 posts
Never attribute to malice that which can equally be explained by carelessness. My experience with completely nonpolitical apps strongly suggests the app approval process is very arbitrary and inconsistent across the board.
They are a private enterprise and can do what they want, but the optics aren't great. For the sake of PR they should try and maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased. Perhaps develop a single policy for politically oriented apps, and stick to it in all cases. PS - Also noticed this was flagged & removed, then restored. Very glad to see it was restored as this is a very relevant thing to be talking about in…
Some extreme examples for an existence proof: sell DIY pet euthanasia kits, sell candy with bits of embedded glass, bury leaky canisters of toxic waste in the local water table...
Some less extreme examples to help move closer to the line of allowed/disallowed behavior: refuse ER treatment based on ability to pay, refuse to provide phone service based on phone number dialed, refuse to seat a patron based on skin color, refuse to bake a wedding cake based on religion or sexual orientation.
So, having established the existence of restraints on corporate bevavior, and the diversity and reasonableness of many of those constraints, where would the line be drawn for companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google that have an oligopoly on most online communication and mobile software distribution?
They are a private enterprise and can do what they want, but the optics aren't great. For the sake of PR they should try and maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased. Perhaps develop a single policy for politically oriented apps, and stick to it in all cases. PS - Also noticed this was flagged & removed, then restored. Very glad to see it was restored as this is a very relevant thing to be talking about in…
Honestly don't think they should allow apps like hide Hillary or punch trump. They're low value and only promote hate towards the person.
Anything else, that is policing content, seems self-serving (upholding brand image or whatever), dictatorial (imposing moral values, such as nudity == evil) and user-hostile.
Never attribute to malice that which can equally be explained by carelessness. My experience with completely nonpolitical apps strongly suggests the app approval process is very arbitrary and inconsistent across the board.
If it were just a matter of creating two political apps, one anti-red and one anti-blue, and observing that the anti-blue one is banned, I'd agree. The article cites 3 different games focussed on simulating violence against Trump, though, which to me is enough to suggest a trend.
I'm quite curious about this article, less about the words, more about how it's being received. It has 43 upvotes in 41 minutes. For a rather bland subject, that's not half bad (point wise), potentially motivated by the political conflict involved, but that happens. However, in the time I've queued it in my "morning reading", I've refreshed it quite a few times and watched it flag, unflag, flag, unflag at least 5-6 r…
> There is certainly very little evidence to the claim of the article Little evidence? The claim is that this app was rejected and Trump satire apps are allowed - what evidence are you expecting other than the existence of the Punch Trump style apps on the App Store? Do you want a letter signed by Tim Cook saying that the App Store policies are intentionally biased?
What do you say about that?
I mentioned this in another comment, but was downvoted for exposing obvious buffoonery.
Never attribute to malice that which can equally be explained by carelessness. My experience with completely nonpolitical apps strongly suggests the app approval process is very arbitrary and inconsistent across the board.
If it were just a matter of creating two political apps, one anti-red and one anti-blue, and observing that the anti-blue one is banned, I'd agree. The article cites 3 different games focussed on simulating violence against Trump, though, which to me is enough to suggest a trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the "vouch" feature working. Countdown on it being flagged down again: 1, 2, 3...
Where does the vouch link show up? I don't recall ever seeing one.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11843347#11844960
> The system used to say [flagged] only when the story was both heavily flagged and dead (closed to new comments). Now it says [flagged] if the story is heavily flagged, dead or not. Flagged-but-not-dead was the case here. That's why you didn't see a 'vouch' link, btw; there's no need to vouch for posts that aren't dead, since the purpose of vouching is to unkill them.