101–110 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The definition of "freedom of speech" is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" (Oxford Dictionary). It does not say anything about the 1st Amendment.
Alex Jones still has the freedom to say whatever he wants. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard or distributed.
As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.
If one forces a person to to talk freely in a backyard instead of of the main street, one is censoring him since no one can hear him any more. That is happening when Apple pushes Alex Jones out of iTunes.
So Apple censoring is the same as a mall refusing you to hold a protest there, which happens all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your theory is that most people want supposedly-benevolent fascism, rather than liberty and freedom?
That's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the ground. People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram, Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major criticism whilst still happily removing content.
Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal with Instagram or Facebook.
So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of the 1990s.
I've never listened to it, and in fact I have no idea who that guy is or what he talks about, except that he's supposedly a conspiracy theorist. For those of you who have, what made his show so objectionable (to Apple, anyway)?
He's not crazy. He's just driving sales to his on-line store this way. These days, even conspiracy nutjobs aren't honestly crazy.
All the people here supporting Apple's decision with an argument "it's a private company, their rules" are the same people moaning when Apple, Google, Facebook or others do the same thing that affects them.
All the people here supporting Apple's decision with an argument "it's a private company, their rules" are the same people moaning when Apple, Google, Facebook or others do the same thing that affects them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Apple receives tons of subsidies.[1] Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area. I can choose between Google or Apple. On the other hand, I can choose between Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sonic, or T-Mobile. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-fa...
What is Apples monopoly exactly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He claimed the Sandy Hook shooting never happened for example and that the parents of the victims were actors
If we are to go down this route, I should hope South Park Mexican is removed from Apple Music next. I am no fan of Alex Jones, but he traffics in conspiracies for entertainment value. He’s a shock jock for the tin foil hat crowd. That doesn’t excuse his ideas, but South Park Mexican is serving 45 years for sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl and his music is available right now on Apple Music — an actual, convicted…
Based on a little bit of skipping around in SPM's oeuvre on Spotify, I didn't hear anything that seemed out of the ordinary for hip hop. I did not hear anything that suggested that his music would be taken as anything other than entertainment by listeners.
Services are choosing to stop carrying Jones because they believe that the product itself that they were helping distribute is harmful. With SPM there doesn't seem to be anything harmful about the product itself. It is just that a terrible person makes money from it.
That's a pretty big difference.
As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.