71–80 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So does Fox News and their content is available everywhere.
Fox News is problematic, may be even extreme (Sean Hannity et al) but I would not put them in the same league as InfoWars. At least not as long as Shepard Smith gets airtime there. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple isn't a public utility. It does not maintain iTunes as a public service, nor does it have any sort of monopoly over podcast distribution. It would be very strange to regulate it as such. (To be clear, internet access is not regarded as a public utility in the US, although I think I lean heavily in that direction.)
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
> Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content? You cherry-picked one point. Taken together, Apple’s lack of monopoly status, terms of use and lack of an explicit history of subsidies and markets exclusively granted by fiat make the First Amendment less applicable to it than e.g. Verizon. In the cases where customers dinged ISPs for throttling, it came down to the ISPs havi…
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-fa...
Good for Apple. It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices, though.
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 elected representatives get involved.
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 once had to admit that he does it for entertainment when lawsuits happened.
But otherwise he is a right wing nutter. Apple chose not to support his podcast anymore.
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).…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. It doesn't require any private actor to tolerate crazy, hate filled nonsense on their platforms. It's his right to continue to spew his garbage, he just has to do it elsewhere.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News is problematic, may be even extreme (Sean Hannity et al) but I would not put them in the same league as InfoWars. At least not as long as Shepard Smith gets airtime there. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0
If we are to complain about Hannity, then we have to include Maddow. Assuming we are trying to be intellectually consistent. She’s just as “extreme” but from the other side.
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.
Apple is not a private entity, its publicly traded company that has a monopoly.
Another case of terrible economic nomenclature. Apple is a public private sector company.
Apple is in the private sector [1] of the economy, i.e. it "is not controlled by the State." This distinction is important to Constitutional law, since the First Amendment does not restrict the private sector; it restricts the state (also known as the public sector [2]).
Apple is a publicly-held corporation, as opposed to a privately-held one like Uber, but that's less relevant to this discussion.