Oh that's embarrassing for you since I neither support Trump nor am I a republican...
I'm not even the slightest bit embarrassed, unless you count vicarious embarrassment for your horrendous rebuttal.
Oh that's embarrassing for you since I neither support Trump nor am I a republican...
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.The man is free to scream about gay frogs all he wants still, just not on any site he wants. By using those other sites, he is agreeing to their terms and by not following their rules, they are free to end service with him. He is responsible for what he puts out and if it costs him, that's his problem. He can still host all his videos on his own site.
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 ?
With all due respect, that is your opinion. The line is not universally accepted as being the one and only correct line.Personally, I think all these forms of News Media should be held accountable for their lies. I understand people want to keep their free speech rights but there comes a point where words can inadvertently incite violence from the woefully stupid citizens.
Stuff like the Sandy Hook conspiracy or those death ‘jokes’ to the President (Forgot who that was), is just crossing the line big time.
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.
The man is free to scream about gay frogs all he wants still, just not on any site he wants. By using those other sites, he is agreeing to their terms and by not following their rules, they are free to end service with him. He is responsible for what he puts out and if it costs him, that's his problem. He can still host all his videos on his own site.
Apple has never said they were inclusive of all opinions. You made that up yourself.Different opinions do not bother me. Say what you want.
Removing content and silencing people? Now you’ve got a war. Especially when you grandstand about being inclusive of all people and opinions.
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.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.
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.He did not incite harassment AFAIK. Saying it "led to" something occurring is quite a stretch. People can hear any news they want and them make any number of dumb decisions based on it.
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.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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Welp! That's the best argument I've seen. Post the Infowars T.O.S. lol!!!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.
The First Amendment has always had limits; this is obviously one of them. His speech is not protected. Please spare us all the feigned outrage.
I have never listened to or watched Alex Jones, but removing alternative POVs is idiotic. What exactly did he violate in Apple's terms anyway? The censors never tell you. Gotta be careful not to commit WrongThink!
Good. I don't listen To Alex Jones, frankly I think he's pretty crazy, but my goodness did they all mess up erasing him from the face of the internet like that within the space of 12 hours.