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

Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 287 posts

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#261

Post by zaroth »

iamdave wrote: post #216
zaroth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don’t think adults need their world wrapped in disclaimers, warnings, and ratings. Particularly when the same become a kind of censorship, like how all DRUDGE tweets come up moderated as sensitive on Twitter.

I often wonder if there's a way to talk about this without the C word coming up, as it seems to quickly slide down the rabbit hole of definitions and what the substantive merit of 'censorship' is. Okay, sure YouTube telling Alex Jones to kick rocks isn't censorship, because only the government has that power. It used to be a go-to move of mine to remind the holder of that opinion that government (supposedly) exists a…

Our free speech laws prevent government censorship, but also stretch to include the concept of corporate censorship in the sense of allowing access to “the public square”. IMO this public square concept will inevitably extend to major internet service providers like Facebook, Google, and Apple.

Similar to how we’ve come to understand the Internet as a whole as a utility which should provided as a dumb-pipe service by companies which must promise neutrality, a similar argument can be made that despite being run by private enterprise (so is most internet infrastructure anyway) that these monopolistic services are so core to how we actually use — and harness — the power of the internet that there is a level of neutrality required in their administration as well.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#262

Post by jhayward »

resters wrote: post #255
jhayward wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This brings to mind the war on drugs, war on terror, etc. Typically war is used when we are meant to take sides in support of drastic action without too much thought getting in the way. No, it isn't meant to dull anyone's thinking or whatever you are implying. It's quite straightforward. Recognize when war is being waged upon you, and act accordingly. Thus the category error attributed to your earlier comment. > I'…

In the interest of avoiding a flame war, I would like to clarify my comment. Please elaborate on what "war" is being waged. That's a strong statement. Jones is to me equivalent to those guys who wear the "got hates gays" signs and go to college campuses preaching inflammatory stuff, in other words, clowns.

This is a very good question, thank you. I am not very articulate in my ability to answer, but I'll give it a shot.

First I would say that it encompasses the fact that the purpose of propaganda, misinformation, and deception is not to inform but to incite, control, misdirect, and is otherwise malign in intent. The purpose of the action is to cause the recipient to self-harm, in the sense of sowing unwarranted distrust, fear, hatred, and division. The most fervent hope of those involved is that the US and the Western world devolve in to internal violence, disorganization, and dismemberment. I would add, these outcomes are very real risks as a result.

This is the major thrust of all of the most malignant social media operations, from Jones, to include wikileaks, the Russian astroturf and info theft campaigns, et. al.

The second aspect, not directly related to the speech aspect, is when political opponents are on the surface simply working the system but actually have no commitment to working within it and will only do so when obtaining their ends. For instance, the matter of the nomination of Garland to the US Supreme court was when it became clear that the party controlling congress was not actually committed to the norms and values of the institution, rather would do whatever they could get away with to achieve their ends. So also with voter disenfranchisement, making up lies about massive voter fraud, etc. These are all warfare, in that they are operating outside the value system that calls for free speech absolutism are assuming.

There is much to be learned from the likes of Arendt, Orwell, and others who studied the practices and effects of propaganda, disinformation, and related techniques. In my view all of these are outside the bounds of the social contract and are in fact warfare.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#263

Post by rbanffy »

jessriedel wrote: post #182
rbanffy wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Apple is deleting his media. Apple is deleting the pointers, as they don't want to be associated with him (which is perfectly reasonable - I wouldn't want that either). His right to free speech is not infringed. He is still free to host the RSS feed and the media files however he sees fit.

We all acknowledge that it's a violation of the first amendment if the government simply makes it hard to access speech even if it's still technically available. The government can't order Google to stop indexing your website even if they allow your website to remain online. Plenty of people here have argued for the gravely mistaken position that free speech protections should only apply to the government, but I've n…

The key word in your argument is 'morally'. What's moral is fluid and varies from person to person. I think it's perfectly legitimate to suppress free speech locally when you protect it globally - for example, in the case of hate speech that demands free speech of certain groups to be globally suppressed.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#264

Post by stuckinarut »

jessriedel wrote: post #45
paulgb wrote: post #35

I agree with the comments that it's their store and they can do what they want with it, and Jones actively uses his platform to bully individuals so I'm not disappointed to see it diminished. That said, the trend of centralization of Podcasts worries me a bit. Podcasts were one of the few real success stories of an open syndication format that allowed an ecosystem of podcast apps to flourish. I've noticed a trend whe…

The fact that private stores can do what they want does not mean that they should do what they want or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise. More generally, not all bad behavior is or should be illegal. The fact that the first amendment only legally applies to the government does not mean that free speech as a concept doesn't have moral force on other organizations. For instance, we expect universities to act as…

> or that consumers shouldn't demand otherwise

as a customer of Apple I'm delighted by this move.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#265

Post by stuckinarut »

unit91 wrote: post #70
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

""Debate"" needs to have a minimum legitimacy requirement to be taken seriously. You can't just make up a string of provably false stuff and use it as a pretext for harassment, Sandy Hook passim.

Sure, by the private individual. The problem is many things that were major moments in world history didn't pass the ruling-class's "minimum legitimacy requirement" at the time. Top-of-my-head examples: the Magna Carta, the Protestant Reformation, Indian Independence, anybody else's independence, Snowden, etc.

and yet all those things happened, in many cases without having to extend free speech to insane degrees.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#266

Post by pcwalton »

zaroth wrote: post #88

This is an interestingly coordinated move. It seems a most like each of the platforms was waiting for one of the others to make the first move at wiping InfoWars off their platform entirely instead of just censoring specific episodes, and then the dominoes fall. I’ve never listened to an InfoWars podcast, so I don’t know what I’m missing. But from what I gather Alex is an entertaining quack who is ultimately harmless…

Alex Jones torments families of Sandy Hook victims with lies in order to enrich himself. Private social platforms can not only choose to not to be complicit in this evil--they have an obligation not to be complicit.

This is not a close call.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#267

Post by 8note »

jessriedel wrote: post #182
rbanffy wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like Apple is deleting his media. Apple is deleting the pointers, as they don't want to be associated with him (which is perfectly reasonable - I wouldn't want that either). His right to free speech is not infringed. He is still free to host the RSS feed and the media files however he sees fit.

We all acknowledge that it's a violation of the first amendment if the government simply makes it hard to access speech even if it's still technically available. The government can't order Google to stop indexing your website even if they allow your website to remain online. Plenty of people here have argued for the gravely mistaken position that free speech protections should only apply to the government, but I've n…

wouldn't it infringe on Apple's free speech to force them to keep the pointers? they're making a political statement by removing them

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#268

Post by 8note »

satsuma wrote: post #59
iamdave wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say John Oliver serves that role pretty decently?

ehh, i'm thinking more colbert report's take on conservative tv. john definitely has the wacky "what will he say next" down, but it's not a satire of aj. i'm looking more for someone who speaks like aj does, about conspiracies as dumb if not dumber than gay frogs.

Jordan Klepper might be the opposer you're looking for. Unfortunately, they were cancelled recently

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#269

Post by eksemplar »

394549 wrote: post #258
eksemplar wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has absolutely nothing to do with that though. You can't force a company or an individual to listen to your opinion on whether penguins are the greatest birds alive.

> You can't force a company or an individual to listen to your opinion on whether penguins are the greatest birds alive. No, that's wrong. The government can force a company to provide services to someone, despite however much that company may disagree them, their views, or their identity. A lot of anti-discrimination law works that way. For instance: private individuals have the right not associate with a particular…

The government shouldn’t though, equality of outcome is evil, forcing someone to keep Alex Jones is similar to forcing a company to hire 50/50 male/women staff.

If you violate a TOS you get banned. Alex Jones is a vile troll, he broke the rules and reaped the consequences. The government shouldn’t prevent this just because he has vile listeners.

Re: Apple Removes Infowars from Podcast Directory

#270

Post by eksemplar »

TooBrokeToBeg wrote: post #239
eksemplar wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do, none of this was done in secret. If you fundamentally disagree with then decision the nobody is forcing you to visit infowars.com through itunes.

Your whole "easy" solution is not a solution. You just avoid the condition and expect it's solved.

It was solved, Alex Jones broke the rules and reaped the consequences. If you posted the same sort of content you would have been banned a lot sooner, and rightly so, being popular shouldn’t give you the right to be evil.

I mean, by all rights, Trump should have been banned from twitter as well, but I guess you can become popular enough that rules don’t apply.

But that is frankly wrong.

Post reply on HN