I'm not even the slightest bit embarrassed, unless you count vicarious embarrassment for your horrendous rebuttal.
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 Confirms Infowars App Won't Be Removed From App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not even the slightest bit embarrassed, unless you count vicarious embarrassment for your horrendous rebuttal.
I’m a bit torn on this issue.
On the one hand, I’m all for free speech and sharing one’s ideas, as ridiculous as they may be. On the other hand I believe Apple and others have the right as private companies do create guidelines to ensure the content in their platform is appropriate. That said, if the companies want to control the content, guidelines enforced equally without political bias. Furthermore, I believe we run into issues, not so much with Apple Podcasts as their are some mainstream alternatives, but with companies that basically have monopoloies with the service they provide such as YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter, etc.
I think Jones is nothing less than a terrible human being. As someone from Connecticut who now lives in Boston and personally knows people affected by 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the Marathon Bombings, his conspiracy theories are just so offensive, heart breaking, and frustrating. I’d love for him to be silenced, but again, I believe in free speech.
I’m not sure I quite understand Apple’s decision to delete his podcast but retain his App. In a way it almost seems like they’re back peddling or trying to create a compromise.
I don’t know what the right answer here is. People have their first Allen enemy rights, but companies are entitled to the content they wish to host. It has become a rather complex issue based on how we consume media.
On the one hand, I’m all for free speech and sharing one’s ideas, as ridiculous as they may be. On the other hand I believe Apple and others have the right as private companies do create guidelines to ensure the content in their platform is appropriate. That said, if the companies want to control the content, guidelines enforced equally without political bias. Furthermore, I believe we run into issues, not so much with Apple Podcasts as their are some mainstream alternatives, but with companies that basically have monopoloies with the service they provide such as YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter, etc.
I think Jones is nothing less than a terrible human being. As someone from Connecticut who now lives in Boston and personally knows people affected by 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the Marathon Bombings, his conspiracy theories are just so offensive, heart breaking, and frustrating. I’d love for him to be silenced, but again, I believe in free speech.
I’m not sure I quite understand Apple’s decision to delete his podcast but retain his App. In a way it almost seems like they’re back peddling or trying to create a compromise.
I don’t know what the right answer here is. People have their first Allen enemy rights, but companies are entitled to the content they wish to host. It has become a rather complex issue based on how we consume media.
And people are protesting about China's censorship and all. LOL.
I have never even heard about infowars before, nor care about their contents, but this brouhaha can potentially create a streisand effect.
I have never even heard about infowars before, nor care about their contents, but this brouhaha can potentially create a streisand effect.
Actually there is a big legal case to be made against these corporations. Newspapers hold editorial control over what its authors post. i.e when reviewing an author's work, they may decide to alter it to fit their company's narrative. So in the event that a slanderous article is posted by a newspaper, the newspaper company is legally liable, not the author.
These social media companies have gotten around this by stating that they are neutral parties and do not hold editorial control over the content that their users post. If these social media companies are therefore found to have exercised editorial control, they can be held accountable for all posts on their platform.
It isn't as easy as you people make it out to be.
So Apple is OK with his hate speech, that means the Klu klux klan and the black panthers can set up shop on Apple that’s awesome news for them
Wrong with this picture allowing this hate speech ?
Apple is perfectly OK with hate speech coming from the New York Times. Do you believe their app should be removed from the App Store?
If you want to police “hate speech” then both sides get to define the term. “Hate speech” isn’t just “things you don’t agree with”.
With all due respect, that is your opinion. The line is not universally accepted as being the one and only correct line.
Not to mention the tech giants are all bending over backwards to appease China, going so far as to develop censorship technology that will be used by the dictatorship to censor criticism of the government.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if China starts putting pressure on Facebook, Google, Apple to start censoring critiques of China within the United States (or globally).
This concerns me as well. I agree it would be necessary to remove content if someone encourages or incites others to commit violence or support it, but not just because someone decides to spread lies or have extremely crazy opinions. The media spreads lies all the time with very few consequences, because they own their platform.
Apple can legally choose what content appears on their platform, but given all the big companies have chosen to remove his content and effectively silence him, it only makes matters worst. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people are becoming less tolerant to different points of view. And yet, these are the same people that talk about the need for everyone to be inclusive to all people and opinions. I despise the guy's points of view – I really do, it's just an absolute joke – but what they are doing is pure censorship, plain and simple. And as with others, I care more about the right to free speech than my displeasure for his inappropriate points of view.
It would be far more effective to use your own right to free speech to speak out about his content than just getting every communications outlet to censor him, which only helps to stiffen the resolve of him and his listeners. A better outcome would be to actually use the same platform to demonstrate to these people why their points of view might be wrong by presenting facts and logical arguments. That's free speech. Censoring people just because they choose to share disstasteful opinions that you don't like is not right at all. Yes, private companies like Apple, Spotify and Facebook are not subject to the First Amendment or the European Convention rights, but they should be setting an example of tolerance for all points of view and the importance of free speech. They've miraculously failed at this. People are becoming less and less tolerant to the existence of different points of view and that worries me greatly.
I am not defending his content. I am defending the right to equal free speech.
Apple can legally choose what content appears on their platform, but given all the big companies have chosen to remove his content and effectively silence him, it only makes matters worst. I've said it before and I'll say it again: people are becoming less tolerant to different points of view. And yet, these are the same people that talk about the need for everyone to be inclusive to all people and opinions. I despise the guy's points of view – I really do, it's just an absolute joke – but what they are doing is pure censorship, plain and simple. And as with others, I care more about the right to free speech than my displeasure for his inappropriate points of view.
It would be far more effective to use your own right to free speech to speak out about his content than just getting every communications outlet to censor him, which only helps to stiffen the resolve of him and his listeners. A better outcome would be to actually use the same platform to demonstrate to these people why their points of view might be wrong by presenting facts and logical arguments. That's free speech. Censoring people just because they choose to share disstasteful opinions that you don't like is not right at all. Yes, private companies like Apple, Spotify and Facebook are not subject to the First Amendment or the European Convention rights, but they should be setting an example of tolerance for all points of view and the importance of free speech. They've miraculously failed at this. People are becoming less and less tolerant to the existence of different points of view and that worries me greatly.
I am not defending his content. I am defending the right to equal free speech.
Last edited:
Being a gay frog myself, having had my sexual orientation changed by drinking chemical water, I do not approve how Apple are trying to silence the truth.
Hope you don’t change your tune when ISPs start blocking and/or throttling competing services now that net neutrality is gone.
Don’t like it? Start your own ISP. Oh, your blog got blocked from the Internet? Go write on paper and distribute that around your town.
Apple has never said they were inclusive of all opinions. You made that up yourself.
[doublepost=1533778730][/doublepost]
The difference is that the ISPs aren't hosting your content and you've presumably paid. The ISPs can block stuff right now but Apple has to hold Alex Jone's offensive content on their servers. ISPs don't have to do that.
Tell that to the guy who shot up the Pizza Parlor because of Alex’s ridiculous conspsiracy that it was a child sex ring started by Hilary Clinton. He had to publicly apologize because of it.
Promote "inclusiveness" and "equality" ... oh wait... unless you disagree with us.
Apple doesn't have editorial control. Newspapers literally have people going through and helping authors write the content. Apple helps people write the app...not necessarily editing the content that could potentially be displayed on an app.
All in all this feels like back peddling on a complex issue. I don't think everyone's free speech should be the same nor is it the same and so it shouldn't be treated like it's the same. Apple bans porn apps from it's store. No one complained about free speech then. They can hush up now.
This seems like a false equivalency. Your argument rests on the assertion that banning people from social media is akin to exerting editorial control in a newspaper. However, the News business and the Social Media business are businesses that are fundamentally different. Banning people that violate the TOS of that Social Media platform is not the same as exerting editorial control because the terms have been laid out in advance. On the other hand, a journalist is not obligated to agree with Editorial changes and can choose not to publish if he/she disagrees and believes editorial changes fundamentally alters their story. Real journalists have extremely strict ethical and moral standards. Unfortunately, too much of print/online media today is conflated as journalism when in fact it is not.
In fact, Alex Jones has himself stated in lawsuits that he is playing a 'character' and his show is for 'entertainment'. It is a pity so many people fail to understand this.
Furthermore, If you look at Alex Jones's own TOS on his infowars website you will note that he employs very similar TOS as many social media companies. Specifically:
“We may review and delete any content you post on the Website or elsewhere utilizing our Services or System if we determine, in our sole discretion, that the content violates the rights of others, is not appropriate for the Website,”
“If you violate these rules, your posts and/or user name will be deleted. Remember: you are a guest here. It is not censorship if you violate the rules and your post is deleted. All civilizations have rules and if you violate them you can expect to be ostracized from the tribe.”
The irony is profound.
Last edited:
These aren't editorial authors, apple provides a service for others to sell X, if X violates the TOS, apple has the right to end services. You willing to bet against Apple's team of lawyers not making sure the TOS isn't full proof in Apple's favor? And yes it does seem pretty simple, by personally choosing to use Apple, facebook, youtube, ect, you as the user are agreeing to their terms, regardless of them or how you feel about them. The user, Jones, does not have a guaranteed right to even use the service in the first place, again it's purely by choice.
I find your "location" saying amusing. You list "Looking for a place of freedom and rationality", shouldn't that mean you believe companies have the freedom to dictate the quality and content of their sites? It would seem rational that they should. It would also seem that freedom and rationality would also include personal responsibility, that if X puts out information that goes against a service you chose to use, that X is responsible for the content they put out, which also means that it's ok to cut ties with X over issued content.
Alex Jones' Lawyer Seeks To Make Sandy Hook Parents' Home Addresses Public https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...parents-addresses_us_5b6b036be4b0b15abaa940a3
Apple does not plan to remove the Infowars app from the iOS App Store at this time, the company told BuzzFeed News this evening. Apple said that the Infowars app had not violated its App Store guidelines.
Apple over the weekend removed the entire libraries of five Infowars podcasts from the Apple Podcasts platform. "War Room" and "The Alex Jones Show," hosted by controversial U.S. radio show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, were among those pulled from Apple Podcasts.
When removing the Infowars podcast listings from the Podcasts platform, Apple said that it does not tolerate hate speech, finding that the Infowars podcasts did indeed violate its podcast content guidelines.As BuzzFeed points out, the Infowars mobile app available from the App Store allows users to live stream the same programs that were removed from the Apple Podcasts platform. The Infowars mobile app streams video broadcasts rather than making a repository of content available to listeners, however, which may be why the app was not pulled while the podcasts were.
BuzzFeed suggests that since the streaming broadcasts are ephemeral and not stored in the app, that Apple will need to "catch [Jones] in the act and in the moment" to act on a violation.
Apple's App Store guidelines state that apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, or in exceptionally poor taste. Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content is listed as an example.Multiple social media platforms have now removed Infowars content from their services, including YouTube, Facebook, and Spotify.
Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
Article Link: Apple Confirms Infowars App Won't Be Removed From App Store
dont care either way, if you dont like it dont download it...simple really.
Welp! That's the best argument I've seen. Post the Infowars T.O.S. lol!!!
You're right that the First Amendment doesn't apply here, but you're wrong about why. It doesn't apply because Apple is free to decide what content to carry (forcing Apple to carry InfoWars' podcasts would be a First Amendment violation), not because Alex Jones is loony. As loony as he is, Alex Jones still has a right to record and distribute his podcast (though Apple has no obligation to help him do so). The U.S. government cannot censor him; Apple can.
All that said, I know that Jones came up with some crackpot story that Sandy Hook didn't really happen, and that some of his more loony fans harassed parents of survivors. But did he actually incite them to do so, or was this just crazy people acting out on their own? What precisely did he do to incite them?
Seems Apple and other SV May have companies screwed up with the ban. The trickle down effect of what companies constitute as hate speech or offensive content will now come back to bite them and us all..should have just let it be. Those upset with Info Wars probably haven’t read,viewed or listened to its content anyways. Now it leaves all other content hosting and linking up for debate that happens to offend others based hurt feelings and what their preferred political talking heads of choice tell them to consume.
You really should look some stuff up that he’s said.
I feel the same way. The guy says a lot of outlandish stuff, and when he doesn't have anyone to keep him in line, he just goes ******* crazy. Only time I could tolerate listening to him was when he was on Joe Rogan's podcast, and Joe would interrupt him to look up different info on the net to verify his claims. Aside from that he just screams nonsense. The only thing worth watching on his IW channel were the street interviews conducted by Owen.