Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 287 posts

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#151

Post by nailer »

joe_the_user wrote: post #76
jessriedel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…

More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. Not all bad behaviors are illegal but calling for active, illegal harassment of an individual, which other people carry out, is, in fact, illegal and given this is often Jones' modus operandi, his activities are illegal and his overall strategy has involved staying one step ahead of lawsuits.

Has he done that? Jones is an asshole, I think the Sandy Hook thing was awful (and could be constituted as harassing them himself) but I haven't heard of him 'calling for active, illegal harassment of an individual' before. Not saying he wouldn't do that, it's just that the ban doesn't mention this and I haven't heard of it.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#152

Post by [deleted] »

rainbowmverse wrote: post #106
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure someone from Google will tell you it is to control the quality/experience. I remember back when I used iTunes that sometimes one podcast or another wouldn't download for a while, because their server was down or whatever, whereas most Google things it is reliably never the server's fault. Google would not be wrong to say it can ensure a better user experience if its providing the podcast over referring to an…

Sounds like AMP. "Google hosts it for performance reasons!" I'm not too worried for myself since I plan to release it all in a Creative Commons album anyway, but I'll keep it in mind if I see someone talking up Google Podcasts.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#153

Post by r3bl »

fareesh wrote: post #114

The bigger story is that Facebook removed several Infowars pages. That's a big hit in terms of their ability to grow through shares/likes and reach a wider audience. I don't know if the Podcast directory is a big source of newcomers, is it?

I do agree that the Facebook news is bigger than both Apple and Spotify combined. And InfoWars seems to agree as well, as they've published a video complaining about Facebook's decisions almost immediately.

However, I don't think that's the biggest damage they could face from a single provider. I'd say that YouTube could absolutely break the entire thing down to pieces.

There are dozens of YouTube videos on their channel with millions of views, often multiple hours long. Hosting multiple hour long video files in a way that millions of people can stream them reliably, that's going to take some effort (and a non-negligible amount of resources).

Since YouTube offers them both discoverability and unlimited video bandwidth, if YouTube made a similar decision to Facebook, they would most probably be destroyed in an instant.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#154

Post by nailer »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #135
resters wrote: post #113

Anyone of average intelligence who spends 30-60 seconds listening to Alex Jones will quickly realize that Jones suffers from some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, and that there is nothing of interest or value to learn from his rants. Those who ignore the obvious signs and still choose to listen to it do so for their own, identity-driven or emotional reasons. This is the same process that causes humans…

> The only way to prevent dark ages beliefs is to shine light on them. This is the sort of principled belief I used to hold that I’m no longer sure holds up to scrutiny. There's always been a fringe that was willing to believe anything. But how do you call something like Infowars “fringe” when it’s on the same “network” as NPR and CNN podcasts? Placement like that legitimizes Infowars. That “light shining” on Infowar…

[flagged]

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#155

Post by mistermann »

pjc50 wrote: post #44
iamdave wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an Austinite (well now Iowan) who grew up with plenty of Alex Jones on the airwaves, it's stuff like this I'll actually-in a morbid kind of way-really miss. I suppose you have to be exposed to it long enough to grow numb to it but Alex Jones became a source of entertainment as I grew older just to see what wackiness he'd come up with next. Gay frogs still manages to put a grin on my face even on my most stressful…

Serious question: how do you make sure that none of this stuff you're listening to leaks into your perception of the real world? Are you sure you're just regarding it as some weird dystopian fiction, like Scarfolk or the SCP foundation, and not letting it affect your real politics?

It's a shame this is getting downvoted because it's a good point, and the very same can be said about late night comedians and their "I'm just a comedian bro, you expect me to be accurate and consistent, lol" bits on the news of the day. These things do have an effect on perception of reality.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#156

Post by drivingmenuts »

jessriedel wrote: post #45
paulgb wrote: post #35

I agree with the comments that it's their store and they can do what they want with it, and Jones actively uses his platform to bully individuals so I'm not disappointed to see it diminished. That said, the trend of centralization of Podcasts worries me a bit. Podcasts were one of the few real success stories of an open syndication format that allowed an ecosystem of podcast apps to flourish. I've noticed a trend whe…

The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…

> More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal.

Apple hasn't said (that I know of) that Infowars speech is illegal. Merely that they want no part of it.

>The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations.

Morals differ between organizations and individuals (just ask any church, the supposed arbiters of morals). Morals are relative to groups and individuals because they are created without/despite the input of other groups and individuals. If there were an absolute moral authority (which would obviate the need for other sets of morals) then perhaps this might be different.

All of this to say: good riddance to bad rubbish. His followers may feel differently, but to Hell with them, too.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#157

Post by takluyver »

unit91 wrote: post #129
pjc50 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. By "legitimacy" I don't mean that people agree with the conclusion being expressed, but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts. The 95 Theses were complaints against real injustices, not a set of fabricated smears. Colonial independences generally were discussable - and discussed - at the time and in a…

> The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. Not in the way you're thinking. This is at the time when the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. While it was the English nobility that opposed the king, they did so (1) at great risk to their own safety, and (2) as the only ones in a position to do so. Certainly no serf could have accomplished this -- they w…

> the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class.

In theory, perhaps. But the barons could and did challenge the King with a degree of success. The king did not have a practical monopoly on the use of force. So the description of Magna Carta as an 'agreement among the ruling class' seems reasonable.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#158

Post by jessriedel »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
jessriedel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…

""Debate"" needs to have a minimum legitimacy requirement to be taken seriously. You can't just make up a string of provably false stuff and use it as a pretext for harassment, Sandy Hook passim.

No, there doesn't need to be an minimum reasonableness to speech for it to be protected. The ravings of a lunatic are and should be protected. The issue of where to draw the line between speech/persuasion/debate and harassment/threats/shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre is an important thorny one, but it is completely separate from the quality or reasonableness of legitimacy of the speech.

I don't know anything about the facts of the case at hand. I am responding to the argument, made above and many place in this thread, that the only sorts of protections on free speech are legal ones, and that in particular they don't apply to legal actions taken individuals or private organizations.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#159

Post by tonysdg »

hannasanarion wrote: post #85
wycs wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you care at all about free speech? You are willing kill this beautiful freedom we have for that?

If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole and they're showing you the door.

If you're going to quote Randall Munroe, at least include a link ;-) https://xkcd.com/1357/

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#160

Post by jessriedel »

joe_the_user wrote: post #76
jessriedel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…

More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. Not all bad behaviors are illegal but calling for active, illegal harassment of an individual, which other people carry out, is, in fact, illegal and given this is often Jones' modus operandi, his activities are illegal and his overall strategy has involved staying one step ahead of lawsuits.

Sounds like a job for the courts. I don't think any in this thread is remotely informed about the facts of the case.
Post reply on HN