111–120 of 151 posts
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.
Relevant article from the socialist Current Affairs magazine: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-leftist-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying Sandy Hook didn’t happen and that the parents were actors is not “floating ideas”.
Ohh well then basically you are saying no one should be allowed to make public statements that could cause a revolution. Why cant you feel your own stupidity!
Good for Apple. It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices, though.
> It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices I find the idea of the government restricting speech more terrifying. That's why we have the First Amendment. I will fight for Alex Jones' right to spew his garbage. But I'll also defend Apple's right, and in my eyes obligation, to not actively promote him.
I think Apple is completely in the right here. They are enforcing a policy and if people don’t like that they don’t have to find podcasts through iTunes. Luckily podcasts are designed to be decentralized, so even if Apple gets too trigger-happy with banning certain podcasts, that won’t affect anyone’s ability to still subscribe to those podcasts.
I think Apple is completely in the wrong here. They are unnecessarily censoring. They should not censor, they must not censor. If this crook called Alex engaged in nonsense and hate-speech it should be the state's obligation to sue him.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#obj...
I think Apple is completely in the right here. They are enforcing a policy and if people don’t like that they don’t have to find podcasts through iTunes. Luckily podcasts are designed to be decentralized, so even if Apple gets too trigger-happy with banning certain podcasts, that won’t affect anyone’s ability to still subscribe to those podcasts.
I think Apple is completely in the wrong here. They are unnecessarily censoring. They should not censor, they must not censor. If this crook called Alex engaged in nonsense and hate-speech it should be the state's obligation to sue him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Main street is public. And as far as I know the owner of the land can kick you when they want, for instance in malls or such. So Apple censoring is the same as a mall refusing you to hold a protest there, which happens all the time.
A: None.
- Apple is a private entity.
- Verizon (and all other ISPs) is/are a private entity.
- Telecom equipment and communication hubs are private entities.
If they wish, they can make you a non-existent entity (on the Web). We have two options:
- regulate some companies as utilities
- build a public network (just like the roads).
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.
When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censor (besides a state church, but the amendment also banned those).
Now there are private entities with comparable censorship power to governments (examples: Google, backbone providers, cell phone carriers). For the sake of the people's natural right of free expression, the interpretation that backs your "reminder" may be obsolete, and anti-censorship law may need to be made to apply to them.
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.
> 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. When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censo…
Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.
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.
As another reminder to everyone: free speech is a cherished value. There is an expectation on everyone's part to uphold these values. To practice tolerance. To pull together. By not upholding these values, Apple is stating that they disagree with free speech. They are exercising intolerance. They are saying it is better to create separate little bubbles to exist in.
Yes they're not the US government. But fortunately, the US government is the gold standard of free speech around the world.
If companies do not wish to uphold that standard, they'll probably suffer. Like FB and Twitter did in the stock market last week.
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.
> 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. When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censo…