This isn't an alternative viewpoint - its wacky hate-speech. Conservatives should be the first ones to applaud Apple for exercising their right to remove his garbage from their platform.
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 Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This isn't an alternative viewpoint - its wacky hate-speech. Conservatives should be the first ones to applaud Apple for exercising their right to remove his garbage from their platform.
Thats right. And that is also why it is time to make Apple's App Store a communications utility and regulate it to make sure they abide by the laws and constitution. Apple's App Store is a monopoly. It is not possible to sell Apps for iPhone in any other way.
In addition, when they operate in conjunction with Google and other tech companies to silence people there are antitrust issues that need to be handled.
[doublepost=1536421967][/doublepost]
Define hate-speech!
In America we only have free speech. “Hate speech” is a made up term for people who can’t be bothered to defend their own arguments and instead choose to silence people.
You aren’t wrong but don’t pretend that if the big tech companies team up and all block someone that persons voice is all but completely silenced. Take them off 95% of the airwaves and they can’t sustain a business. That’s the play here and in this case I can’t say I’m upset but I’ll be watching these companies closely to see who’s next. It won’t stop here.
1. Government is not legally permitted to restrict free speech (unless it is violation of another law)
2. Corporations and citizens are not required to be audience to, or amplifiers for, speech they do not like
It really doesn't matter what the speech is. If I want to have a billboard put up with racist sentiments, the billboard company can prohibit it or allow it, at their sole discretion. I wouldn't go to a RNC event and expect to be warmly welcomed if I favoured Bernie Sanders - it's a private corporate event.
If you don't like the potential of being censored, you should cease belonging to Facebook, Apple, Twitter, or really any social gathering. In fact, you should stay home to avoid this plausible scenario, lest someone ignores you or asks you to leave their house.
2. Corporations and citizens are not required to be audience to, or amplifiers for, speech they do not like
It really doesn't matter what the speech is. If I want to have a billboard put up with racist sentiments, the billboard company can prohibit it or allow it, at their sole discretion. I wouldn't go to a RNC event and expect to be warmly welcomed if I favoured Bernie Sanders - it's a private corporate event.
If you don't like the potential of being censored, you should cease belonging to Facebook, Apple, Twitter, or really any social gathering. In fact, you should stay home to avoid this plausible scenario, lest someone ignores you or asks you to leave their house.
Yep. It's typically libs that demand for speech they don't agree with to be silenced.
How I deal with Alex Jones? Easy. I just don't partake. He's been extremely easy to avoid. Zero effort required.
I still remember this clown from the reptilian illuminati conspiracy, saddest thing tho is to see so many people ignoring what free speach is and mean, also confusing a private platform for a government. There is just no hope, Internet is a failed social experiment. Some people are ment to be manipulated.
Hey, I never demanded Alex Jones be removed from any platform. He's a total loon and it's hard to fathom anyone of any political party listening to him. But I also don't give two ***** that Apple or anyone else cut him off their platform like the cancer he is. People need not conflate lack of someone caring he's gone with them actively rallying for him to be removed.
I don't like Apple deciding for me what's right & wrong.
At the same time however, there isn't any moral imperative that Apple has to help give this guy a platform either.
I wouldn't let Alex Jones on my property to put out his message. Apple isn't telling us that we can't listen to him, they're just saying that they aren't going to help give him a platform either.
Now if they somehow blocked him through their web browser that would be a different story altogether.
Waters encouraged private citizens to confront Trump administration members, who are public servants and are accountable to the public and chose that life for themselves, about their policies in public. (She never said anything about harassing “Trump supporters,” who are likewise private citizens and are entitled to their wrongheaded opinions.)
Alex Jones called on his audience members to stalk and harass the grieving parents of children who died in a mass shooting.
If you think the political protest of public officials is equivalent to a vitamin salesman doxxing the victims of a tragedy in order to drive traffic to his online store, then your moral compass is broken.
Last edited:
If its Apple, what right do I have to do anything but voice my displeasure? But my displeasure wouldn't be calling them traitors of the 1st Amendment.
Then again, most people I agree with don't call the mass-murder of young children a hoax.
I’m talking about the mass censorship of someone. This is just the latest in a long string of events.
So would you feel the same if this was Neil Degrasse Tyson? Or The Church of Latter Day Saints? Or Richard Dawkins?
[doublepost=1536423913][/doublepost]It’s funny peoples opinions on censorship depend on the subject being cencored.
You know that will never happen though. Neil Degrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins are the left's messiahs because they make them feel like the superior beings they think they are.
My point still stands.
No one is willing to answer the question of what happens to their opinion on mass censorship when the mass censorship happens to someone they agree with.
Because they are hypocritical idiots that are welcoming 1984 with open arms just because they disagree with Jones.
I'm sure many churches or Uber-religious people ban people like Neil Degrasse Tyson from whatever platform they have. Don't care.
As for mass censorship, he (Jones) is free to keep spewing his stuff.
We live in a society that has standards and norms. Obviously, we have differences about the boundaries and limits of those things. I'd like to think we're smart enough to separate Neil Degrasse Tyson from Alex Jones, but then again Trump is president so what the hell do I know about norms or what is acceptable.
1. Duh
2. Duh
3. My point was that libs don’t actually care who is getting “throttled” as long as it isn’t them. Apple is acting like an ISP, selecting which services I get to have access to. Wouldn’t surprise me if they blocked me from accessing info wars website. But it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t see the similarities.
Truth is, this action will only make Info Wars more popular. I work and in communications, you can’t buy this amount of publicity.
Last edited:
You’re missing the point, just like everyone else. It’s very simple.
What happens when someone you agree with gets banned en masse from all major online platforms?
I’m talking Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, Podcasts, App Stores, Youtube.
Simple question.
What happens when this happens to a prominent politician? What then?
Do you not see how dangerous this is?
Up until today, I have no clude what Infowars or who Alex Jones were...
I know this is a great country where freedom of speech is permitted, but I never knew freedom of hatespeech is allowed too.
I know this is a great country where freedom of speech is permitted, but I never knew freedom of hatespeech is allowed too.
There is no definition of hate speech, that’s the problem.
That's one of those "too bad, so sad" moments for me. They are allowed to do that if they choose to. That's the beauty of the Constitution. It allows for the private sector to police itself in an instance like this. The far right can always develop its own platforms.
It’s a little frightening reading these comments. So many seem happy to see free speech being crushed.
Free speech is easy when it’s bland, boring, normal things. It’s on the extremes where we must be most vigilant to protect it, even if you find what someone says is repugnant.
Stop being so foolish, just because you don’t like what he says (I don’t), doesn’t mean you should be happy to see a person silenced.
Who’s to say what you are saying shouldn’t be silenced, who’s the judge?
The left wing in America is really quite worrying, between branding anything to the right of their far left position as ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ to openly banning people from speaking in public places like Twitter or student campuses.
Please stop and think before you eradicate one of your most valuable freedoms.
Free speech is easy when it’s bland, boring, normal things. It’s on the extremes where we must be most vigilant to protect it, even if you find what someone says is repugnant.
Stop being so foolish, just because you don’t like what he says (I don’t), doesn’t mean you should be happy to see a person silenced.
Who’s to say what you are saying shouldn’t be silenced, who’s the judge?
The left wing in America is really quite worrying, between branding anything to the right of their far left position as ‘fascist’ or ‘racist’ to openly banning people from speaking in public places like Twitter or student campuses.
Please stop and think before you eradicate one of your most valuable freedoms.
If Apple removes a platform of someone I "agree with", I'd say the same thing. This would be the equivalent of a right-leaning media enterprise not allowing for someone I "agree with" freely publishing on their platform.
Would Breitbart allow for Jon Stewart to publish daily content on their website?
[doublepost=1536425130][/doublepost]
Please learn what "free speech" means before you comment again.
Thans.
The left is always, always comfortable and happy to blackhole things they find distasteful.
It’s actually easier to understand if you come to recognize the left sees everything as a struggle of good versus evil; they are on the side of good and those they disagree with are evil, “terrible,” “toxic,” hateful, bigoted, literally Hitler, etc.
When you look at it this way, it’s a moral imperative to banish Alex Jones. After all, he is evil. In fact, a failure to blackhole him is a moral failure in itself.
Hence, it is always right and indeed necessary to memory hole unpopular speech, punch a Nazi, or shut down confirmation hearings all while cosplaying as if one is from the Handmaiden’s Tale. And so on and so forth.