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

Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#21

Post by tyleo »

potato3732842 wrote: post #20
intermerda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.

It’s a bit funny because even the comment is a bit of a language game

> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.

At any rate, I don’t usually care for precision but this case seems particularly egregious and can actually cause misunderstanding. At least, I misunderstood what the article was about from reading the headline.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#22

Post by jordanb »

intermerda wrote: post #18
tyleo wrote: post #15

This headline feels loaded. “Protected class” has a legal definition. “Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use. This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

There's this crazy tendency to LARP as counsel for the defence whenever a big tech company gets bad press.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#23

Post by tracker1 »

intermerda wrote: post #18
tyleo wrote: post #15

This headline feels loaded. “Protected class” has a legal definition. “Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use. This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

> particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group

That part seems to cover the use case for the apps.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#25

Post by protimewaster »

jordanb wrote: post #22
intermerda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

There's this crazy tendency to LARP as counsel for the defence whenever a big tech company gets bad press.

That's one of the things I routinely find frustrating about this site. Though, on the whole, I still think responses on HN are more reasonable than many other places in the internet.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#27

Post by estimator7292 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16
tyleo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked ChatGPT and it linked me to a post dang responded to. It’s related to their paywall. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348

That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.

If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#28

Post by DangitBobby »

estimator7292 wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.

If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?

Because they need money to continue to exist

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#29

Post by JumpCrisscross »

estimator7292 wrote: post #27
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.

If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?

> If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?

Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine.

The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free.

So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.

Re: Apple defined ICE as a "protected class" in blocking anti-ICE apps

#30

Post by watwut »

tyleo wrote: post #19
intermerda wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class. > 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted indi…

It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up. > This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre. Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.

> Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole

Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.

Post reply on HN