121–130 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wow, being pro censorship is mainstream now?
( Not sarcastic )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Jewish Mafia There's a Jewish Mafia? >Pizzagate He talked about it, sure, but if you can find me where he promotes violence against Alefantis then I'll eat my hat.
> There's a Jewish Mafia? According to Jones [1][2]. (To be clear, there was a strain of Jewish-American organized crime around the turn of the last century [3], but that isn't what Jones was referring to.) [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418304/... [2] https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crim...
There are mobs of all races, ethnic groups.
Although I can't speak specifically to the points mentioned by Jones, all those sources you cite are suspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, now let's make open decentralized app distribution platforms that cannot be censored like this.
Go right ahead. And then watch as nobody uses them. Because nobody other than a fringe minority actually wants free speech in all its deranged, violent, racist, mysgonistic, cruel, abusive forms. The majority of us just want a nice, safe space free from the nasty side of humanity.
Some of us prefer a non-fixed outlook and an intellectual curiosity which sometimes involves wading through unsavory content. Also known as the real world. Please do not try to stifle my choices.
( In abstract, away from gov/private entity debate )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What should elected representatives do? You as a citizen have the right to not consume Alex Jones content. Apple has a right to ban it. The government does not have the right to be involved at all unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment. I definitely don’t want my elected representatives involved in idea curation. That’s far more terrifying. Go be a journalist in Turkey to see what is truly terrifying when…
> unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment An amendment that very few other rich, developed countries have, and yet Americans appear to cling on to like it's the only thing stopping the damn wheels coming off. Isn't 1A why y'all have Citizens United?
Principles are timeless.
Like the Golden rule.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 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 w…
That's neither here nor there. I wasn't making an originalist textual argument in my comment, but actually the opposite. The modern world, with such powerful "private" entities that can engage in censorship, doesn't map very well onto the world of the founders in many ways. Therefore, to preserve the original effect and intent of the First Amendment, the law perhaps needs to be modified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?
No, because ISPs are natural monopolies ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly ). The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for investing in the infrastructure. As such, there’s no easy way for competition to happen. (You would have to invest in a new infrastructure. Notice how you never have two cable companies or two DSL companies unless it’s one company selling under two names).…
Your summary of a natural monopoly is at odds with the definition in the wikipedia article you linked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can switch my ISP from Verizon to AT&T or Comcast with a single phone call tomorrow. Apple is far more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my area. Should we regulate Apple as a public utility?
Because AT&T is DSL, Comcast is cable, and Verizon is Fiber. If you want the fastest internet, you really don’t have a choice. And telling people “you have a choice, just switch to something slower” is not the same as “you have a choice, download the podcast elsewhere” because in the second case you get the same quality (lol I said quality when referring to infowars but I digress) podcast.
Also, just because one company offers a faster connection than another does not make it a monopoly. Whatever company that sells the fastest production car does not automatically have a monopoly on supplying automobiles. Choosing an ISP is more complex than simply finding the fastest speed. Price and customer service come to mind immediately as very important. And if all the ISPs offer speeds that are above your needs, speed might not even be a major factor in your decision.
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.
No they are emphatically not, because Jone's screeds are not intended to be free speech as cherished by society.
They are acknowledging that society's norms can be weaponized against itself by those bent on power and destruction, and that tolerance of intolerance is incompatible with continued existence of the norms of free speech and tolerance. [1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they're calling it hate speech. He doesn't talk about any particular ethnic group (not even Jews, despite what his detractors might say). He's against IIRC having trans children take puberty blockers, which might be an issue, but TBH an argument can be made for the well-being of the child. No, I think this is an issue of twitter-mob pressure against Itunes after Spotify announced they would keep Infowars conten…
> not even Jews, despite what his detractors might say He’s talked extensively about the Jewish mafia. He promoted violence against the made-up “Pizzagate” B.S. and only backed down because Texan libel law is particularly stern. I support Alex Jones’ right to speak, but I don’t think—particularly in the era of the Internet—Apple should support him.
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...