This seems like a completely informed opinion. Just because we may not like someone, doesn’t mean they still don’t have that inalienable right.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Discusses Privacy, China, Alex Jones and More in VICE Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's legal censorship but we are all immune from its prosecution except for the U.S. government itself.
[doublepost=1538571315][/doublepost]
It made Cook pause and think not because it was dumb but because no one had asked him that before. Any question that forces Cook to step away from his scripted talking points is a good question. The question goes to the heart of media companies and their oversight on censoring and arbitrarily silencing content creators.
Free speech does not exist on a private server. He can still communicate his message all he likes, Youtube, Apple etc are under no obligation to host him at all. In fact, doing so would hurt their business. This also applies to far left outlets like It's Going Down, who have also been removed from services.
Whether or not these media outlets are so big they not constitute a public service key to everyday life is another matter and one I think worth debating, but as it stands the law is very clear.
Let's not forget it's not just his views, but he also knowingly spends libellous content.
Tim is just another high-tech leftist. He doesn't like true discourse and he doesn't like computers. It's time to move on.
Thanks for the good laugh this a.m.
Church said the same thing about Copernicus. Granted he is no Copernicus, but that's beside the point. The point is expression of thoughts and ideas. You have an obligation to teach your children to be curious and to question everything. You can't do that in a censored society where someone gets to decide if you can handles it or not. Not to mention that he still has presence on the internet and it doesn't change much.
True. Was on Apple News yesterday and the top articles and near all that were shown of a political nature were ones slamming Kavanaugh. Nothing supporting him. That's not neutral....
Funny how in all the comments it is the righties here bashing the liberals not the other way around. Not 1 attack on the right, yet. Just goes to show how hypocritical those on the right are even at MR.
If Apple DIDN'T censor Alex Jones and InfoWars, I would think less of Apple's morals.
35 Days until this all comes crashing down for Big Tech and the Dems/RINOs/Elitest Cabal.
Get your fake news fix in now.
Get your fake news fix in now.
sounds like the kind of person that would faint and have his monocle fall into their mint julep at the sight of black bloc
Tim said nothing informative about the Jones censorship. He basically said it is obvious to anyone why Jones was banned. But decent people offer specific reasons for their actions. In this case it would be enumerating specific things Jones said that are worthy of censoring him. Neither Apple or anyone else has done this. The reason is because it would expose their bias and hypocrisy.
There is no such thing as hate speech. You can still purchase Hitler’s works in free countries like the USA. You can not in countries without our historic commitment to freedom. The US for all our faults has a principle that you are free to say anything other than incitements to violence. We either believe in that or we don’t. In the modern US the ‘liberals’ are the ones who want to censor speech.
There is no such thing as hate speech. You can still purchase Hitler’s works in free countries like the USA. You can not in countries without our historic commitment to freedom. The US for all our faults has a principle that you are free to say anything other than incitements to violence. We either believe in that or we don’t. In the modern US the ‘liberals’ are the ones who want to censor speech.
On Privacy:
What does Cook want you to believe? That Google knows too much about you? The reality is that Google is simply doing more with the same info. Sure, Google can tie your identity to your online interests but it doesn't share your identity with marketers. Google would compromise its own business if it did that. Instead, Google reveals the marketers to you—not vise versa. If you decide to reveal yourself to a marketer during a purchase, that's you sharing your identity.
What Google does is no different than what your grocery store does with customer loyalty cards and barcodes. In fact, your credit card issuer was selling your identity and shopping habits to marketers long before Google existed.
Personally, I resented the overt ads that crowded early websites. However, I'm less annoyed when the ads are relevant to the site's topic and my interests. The constant presence of marketing online and offline is still tiresome, but Apple is an equal participant.
Cook wants you to believe that their anonymized approach to AI processing was an ethical decision. Yeahhhh... Apple is a steward of consumer rights. More likely, Apple wanted a bite-size product that wasn't resource-demanding. Siri's inventor(s) said they had a bigger vision for Siri but that Apple wanted to limit Siri. After all, Apple isn't making any revenue with Siri.
Frankly, I haven't encountered anyone who says Google somehow compromised his life. Personally, my life has been compromised by Apple's "walled garden". Originally, Apple's walled garden simply protected your hardware and software from hackers and viruses. As a customer, you still maintained your freedoms: freedom to purchase and install software from any source, the ability to own and transfer digital content, the right to repair or modify hardware. Today, Apple's walled garden isn't to protect your products. It's to protect Apple's revenue streams and prevent you from straying. Walled gardens can easily morph from Utopias to prisons.
What does Cook want you to believe? That Google knows too much about you? The reality is that Google is simply doing more with the same info. Sure, Google can tie your identity to your online interests but it doesn't share your identity with marketers. Google would compromise its own business if it did that. Instead, Google reveals the marketers to you—not vise versa. If you decide to reveal yourself to a marketer during a purchase, that's you sharing your identity.
What Google does is no different than what your grocery store does with customer loyalty cards and barcodes. In fact, your credit card issuer was selling your identity and shopping habits to marketers long before Google existed.
Personally, I resented the overt ads that crowded early websites. However, I'm less annoyed when the ads are relevant to the site's topic and my interests. The constant presence of marketing online and offline is still tiresome, but Apple is an equal participant.
Cook wants you to believe that their anonymized approach to AI processing was an ethical decision. Yeahhhh... Apple is a steward of consumer rights. More likely, Apple wanted a bite-size product that wasn't resource-demanding. Siri's inventor(s) said they had a bigger vision for Siri but that Apple wanted to limit Siri. After all, Apple isn't making any revenue with Siri.
Frankly, I haven't encountered anyone who says Google somehow compromised his life. Personally, my life has been compromised by Apple's "walled garden". Originally, Apple's walled garden simply protected your hardware and software from hackers and viruses. As a customer, you still maintained your freedoms: freedom to purchase and install software from any source, the ability to own and transfer digital content, the right to repair or modify hardware. Today, Apple's walled garden isn't to protect your products. It's to protect Apple's revenue streams and prevent you from straying. Walled gardens can easily morph from Utopias to prisons.
The Government can’t arrest you for what you say, nor stop you from distributing those points of view in public places or via willing companies.
No company is legally required to broadcast your opinions.
And before you bring up the LGBT couple and the bakery that refused to serve them, it went to court and here’s the final outcome:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1052989001
Business are not required to give you a platform, and denying you that opportunity does not violate your rights.
That's because leftists are vigorously curtailing free speech.
Only to those so ill at ease with "big words" that they frighten them.
Mike
[doublepost=1538580012][/doublepost]
No. It is, in fact, not as "simple as that." People throw around the oft-repeated phrase that "you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater." But what does that mean? It means your right to free speech is trumped by others' right to peaceful existence. If you scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, intentionally and when there is no fire, you put others in harm's way. Their right to not be harmed is greater than your right to cry wolf.
What Alex Jones has done is very much akin to crying fire in a crowded theater. His speech puts others in danger, and as far as I'm concerned their rights supercede his, in this matter. I'm grateful that Apple, and a growing list of others, see it the same way.
Mike
I use to be a big fan of Vice News before it go sole to HBO and HBO turned it into a liberal progressive slanted political content. Vice was a hard hitting, objective news that most major news would ignore in terms of subject matter. Now it just another CNN type media editorial biases content channel trying hard to say it is objective. LOL!
Most of the staff and reporters was let go when HBO took control of it!
Most of the staff and reporters was let go when HBO took control of it!
Just an amazing coincidence.
The neo-liberals are constantly shouting that trump supporters are stupid. They must really believe that.
It is a slippery slope Tim is following from his predecessors and unfortunately most likely his successors. Regardless if you agree with a particular content provider, app, news story, if one is an adult they should be able to make adult decisions. Not Apple. Not the FCC. Not anybody. As an adult I should be allowed to decide what is appropriate for my children to consume.
That being said, humans do not curate content on Apple News because I have seen things on there that is either borderline or beyond NSFW content, usually originating from Buzzfeed, which I have blocked on my own.
"We don't take a political stand."
My sides.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook Is Hosting a Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton":
http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/apple-tim-cook-fundraiser-clinton/
My sides.
"Apple CEO Tim Cook Is Hosting a Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton":
http://fortune.com/2016/08/24/apple-tim-cook-fundraiser-clinton/
I agree, but since he was not banned from a public forum, there is nothing that has violated his right to free speech. He still has websites and other public means to spread his message. Private companies will do what’s best for their bottom line. They are not responsible to create public forums, that’s the government’s job. Apple has every right to disallow him just like he has every right to say whatever he wants in a public place.
[doublepost=1538583895][/doublepost]
If you think it was better under Steve, your memory needs to be refreshed. He was all about building a family friendly censored walled garden around the App Store. Remember he tried to ban political apps and satire? And the ban on adult materials? Apple is like a book store. It has every right to sell what it wants on its own store or discovery pages. Just because a book has been published doesn’t mean a barns and noble has to sell it. The publisher can find their own ways to distribute whatever they want, but it is not entitled to a place in the shelves.