Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't this all the same thing? Apple made a decision: "This form of speech is dangerous, so we're going to decide what our customers are allowed to see." And so Apple blocks both dangerous speech, and safe speech that could harm Apple's revenue, and safe speech that powerful individuals dislike. People always seem to think of this as a false dichotomy, so I want to emphasize again that I think Apple's curated App…
I don't think it's the same thing. Apple has at least three options: - Have a store with, say, quality control, and the option to side-load - Have a store with "quality control" (and, as I see it, some rather large levers to fight competition), no option to side-load, but don't bow to state actors - same, but bow to state actors. I wish it's the first, I thought it's the second, but we now see it's the third. I think…
But see, by saying "don't bow to state actors", you're making a moral judgement about when it is and is not okay to bow to pressure.
Was it okay when Apple got rid of Alex Jones's app? He was spreading misinformation about vaccines, that's pretty darn dangerous. I guess you could argue that wasn't due to a "state actor", but is anti-Hong-Kong pressure from Chinese citizens all that different?
And here's the thing—I do think platform holders sometimes need to make moral judgements, and I'm glad Alex Jones is banned from the App Store. I'm significantly less glad that it's completely impossible to install his app anymore. It's the difference between not actively giving someone a megaphone, and actually banning speech.