Apple Permanently Bans 'Infowars' App From the App Store

[Jsameds]

Um, you know you can watch YouTube on Apple products without an app, right? It’s a website.

We’re talking about the App Store. Alex Jones app linked to a website.

Well I guess that depends. Does Youtube consider themselves to be a platform offering content creators a chance to share their voice, free of Youtube curation or demonetization over whether they approve of the content of the message or not?

Again, we’re not talking specific rules from other websites. We’re talking about apps that link to content that breaks their rules.

Twitter, snapchat, Facebook, all dating apps.

They all break the same rules but they remain on the App Store.

 

[Treq]

More left wing silencing right wing ppl but terrorists still have social media pages

60 seconds on YouTube at any given moment and I can find something that breaks Apple’s rules.

So why isn’t their app banned?

because you tube will take it down. Alex Jones won’t take down the hate speech because he’s the one that put it up.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

We’re talking about the App Store. Alex Jones app linked to a website.



Again, we’re not talking specific rules from other websites. We’re talking about apps that link to content that breaks their rules.

Twitter, snapchat, Facebook, all dating apps.

They all break the same rules but they remain on the App Store.

To that matter, even Safari breaks their own App rules by accessing pornography.

 

[Delgibbons]

Think back to when the App Store was first opened. How much backlash Apple got over the concept that it was a walled garden store, and the option to independently load external apps on your iPhone was blocked by the OS software (you could jailbreak and play the cat and mouse game until Apple plugged the software holes). Basically, that this was being set up in a very bad way and would leave a lot of room for Apple to control what you could or couldn't do or what content you could or couldn't see on your own devise.

Remember that time? Remember the countless number of people who said they should be able to put whatever Apps on their phone as they wanted. If they wanted to use the App Store, great, but they shouldn't be actively prevented from loading third party apps on a phone they purchased. Basically, like how things run currently on MacOS.

This is an example of when Apple not only distributes what someone can install on their phone, but also actively prevents you from having the choice to install software via 3rd party solutions. This is what the original backlash spoke of. Not to the specifics of the WHOEVER is deleted from the app store this week, but the mechanisms by which it is possible. You'll find this story all over the place over the past few years, whether it's Apple using their leverage to charge whatever fee they want on app developers (feel free to read about Spotify), to blocking perfectly valid apps because they may compete with what Apple software does (feel free to read about Valve), or because an app has sexual content (remember all of the non-relevant apps that were deleted in the wake of that particularly ******** company initiative?).

I still don't get why apple gets away with not allowing proper third party Web browsers to use their own engines.

On Android and the major desktop platforms, different browsers use different rendering engines. Safari uses WebKit, Microsoft Edge uses EdgeHTML, Chrome uses Blink, and Firefox uses Gecko. On iOS, Apple has never allowed third-party browsing engines. Developers can build browsers, but they’re always just wrappers for the platform’s Webkit-based first-party engine.

 

[oldhifi]

Good let him eat all the snake oil he sells

 

[JosephAW]

There seems to be a pattern here. When Twitter bans an account Apple follows afterwards. I didn't know Twitter was in charge of Apple. When will Apple make the first step and Twitter will follow?

 

[Jsameds]

because you tube will take it down. Alex Jones won’t take down the hate speech because he’s the one that put it up.

Did you even read what I said?

No, they don’t take a lot of content down that breaks Apple’s rules.

What part about that do you not get?

 

[iapplelove]

They just did.

I didn’t have a say in the decision.

 

[2010mini]

Not a fan of this guy, his platform or his believes at all but I don’t think Apple should decide what’s right or wrong.

They can. This is a business not a government. They are free to sensor any content they want to. Apple does not have a monopoly on social media. A Jones is free to continue his rant without Apple.

[doublepost=1536405294][/doublepost]

More left wing silencing right wing ppl but terrorists still have social media pages

Alex Jones is right wing?!???

 

[magicschoolbus]

 

[Treq]

Did you even read what I said?

No, they don’t take a lot of content down that breaks Apple’s rules.

What part about that do you not get?

What part of “they do” do you not get?
[doublepost=1536406116][/doublepost]

I didn’t have a say in the decision.

You don’t get one. Apple exercised their freedom of speech. You had nothing to do with it.

 

[Zmmyt]

Truly civilized “societies” let their members decide for themselves

We saw what happened 1936 in Germany when you allow hate speach.

 

[centauratlas]

So what is, in your definition, hate speech? Or there is none?

Hate speech is a made up concept to silence those with whom one disagrees.

Authoritarians/collectivists of any stripe - socialist, fascist, communist - love shutting up those they disagree with because it makes it easier to sell their anti-liberty tripe.

Sure a private company has the right to ban them if they wish, but in general in a free society, the best way to combat BS is with facts and discussion.

 

[Treq]

Hate speech is a made up concept to silence those with whom one disagrees.

Everything is a made up concept, but your definition is incorrect.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate speech

 

[Guda.FL]

I never heard any of his content. however once this ban happens, we end up lowering the bar on “new” perceived hate speech that may bot be. And so after time anything becomes offencive.

I had an intern who skipped work day after Trump got elected. He was upset. I told him there were 43 presidents before and we all survived. He wrote a complaint letter to his school and we were warned by the their program. Point im trying to make is that it has never happenned and we did not know if you should laugh or cry. Things are changing and the bar is being lowered each generaion.

Its free speech and just like myself who has no clue who this guy is, but he sure will form larger outlets and get more annoying now. Not the opposite. As apple becomes such a large entity of our society and crushing competition they should be open.

 

[Spendlove]

Truly civilized “societies” let their members decide for themselves

They have, the civilian owned company has banned his bile from being spewed across their civilian owned property.

 

[Treq]

I never heard any of his content. however once this ban happens, we end up lowering the bar on “new” perceived hate speech that may bot be. And so after time anything becomes offencive.

I had an intern who skipped work day after Trump got elected. He was upset. I told him there were 43 presidents before and we all survived. He wrote a complaint letter to his school and we were warned by the their program. Point im trying to make is that it has never happenned and we did not know if you should laugh or cry. Things are changing and the bar is being lowered each generaion.

Its free speech and just like myself who has no clue who this guy is, but he sure will form larger outlets and get more annoying now. Not the opposite. As apple becomes such a large entity of our society and crushing competition they should be open.

It’s not just that it’s hate speech though. It is intentionally misleading/misinformation meant to destabilize people’s idea of what is factual. It is gaslighting on a grand scale. The weak minded Jones fans are just the most susceptible.

 

[Jsameds]

What part of “they do” do you not get?
[doublepost=1536406116][/doublepost]
You don’t get one. Apple exercised their freedom of speech. You had nothing to do with it.

They take down some content but most content that violates apples rules still remains on the platform. And yet the app still

Do you think in black and white all the time?

 

[Spendlove]

Shame. Free speech is dead.

No it isn't.

I believe the American rules allow him to stand outside in public and say anything he pleases whether that is agreeable to people or not which is a wonderful thing for a democratic society.

However, it does not say protect him from someone else thinking "Hey, this guy is a hateful asshat talking this bile on MY services, against the rules he signed up to, I don't think I am going to allow that" and then remove it from the service they are providing.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the American system - as is your right, you know, using free speech you have and MacRumours also allowing you to do so.

 

[Jsameds]

It’s not just that it’s hate speech though. It is intentionally misleading/misinformation meant to destabilize people’s idea of what is factual. It is gaslighting on a grand scale. The weak minded Jones fans are just the most susceptible.

Just like religion then.
[doublepost=1536407815][/doublepost]

No it isn't.

I believe the American rules allow him to stand outside in public and say anything he pleases whether that is agreeable to people or not which is a wonderful thing for a democratic society.

However, it does not say protect him from someone else thinking "Hey, this guy is a hateful asshat talking this bile on MY services, against the rules he signed up to, I don't think I am going to allow that" and then remove it from the service they are providing.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the American system - as is your right, you know, using free speech you have and MacRumours also allowing you to do so.

But when multiple corporations that control a very good percentage of the voting public all silence the same opinion, what then?

Whether you agree with Jones or Apple or whatever, doesn’t this scare you?

What happens when they silence someone you agree with without your knowledge that it ever happened? What happens in 50 years time when this is conducted on a whole different scale?

It’s surpression of opinion and it is happening right in front of everyone’s noses.

Wake up!

 

[Spendlove]

A liberals way of censoring public opinion is calling it hate speech.

Again, I believe Americans are allowed to say anything they like in public no matter how disagreeable the content.

A company however does not have to put up with that.

Of course if you don't like the American system you are welcome to come to Britain where not only would extreme right wing views be expressed as abhorrent to the society at large, you'd soon find yourself in prison where you might find people have rather opposed views to yours and you would have a jolly old time discussing your "rights for holocaust denial and racism discussion" in person face to face with them.

The dscussion might not go as well as you'd hoped.
[doublepost=1536408113][/doublepost]

Just like religion then.
[doublepost=1536407815][/doublepost]

But when multiple corporations that control a very good percentage of the voting public all silence the same opinion, what then?

Whether you agree with Jones or Apple or whatever, doesn’t this scare you?

What happens when they silence someone you agree with without your knowledge that it ever happened? What happens in 50 years time when this is conducted on a whole different scale?

It’s surpression of opinion and it is happening right in front of everyone’s noses.

Wake up!

No ones opinion is being oppressed, suppressed. He is free to stand outside in the street, publish his own papers, radio show or whatever.

He isn't protected if he wanted to stand in my garden saying the same thing on my land. That would definitely earn a swift "Get off my land" reward.

Completely different things.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

No it isn't.

I believe the American rules allow him to stand outside in public and say anything he pleases whether that is agreeable to people or not which is a wonderful thing for a democratic society.

However, it does not say protect him from someone else thinking "Hey, this guy is a hateful asshat talking this bile on MY services, against the rules he signed up to, I don't think I am going to allow that" and then remove it from the service they are providing.

Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of the American system - as is your right, you know, using free speech you have and MacRumours also allowing you to do so.

You seem to believe that freedom of speech is something that the US government grants its citizens. It's quite the opposite:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is specifically about how the government won't make it illegal. Freedom of speech isn't "legal." It's simply the baseline, and the government pledges not to interfere.

 

[Jsameds]

Again, I believe Americans are allowed to say anything they like in public no matter how disagreeable the content.

A company however does not have to put up with that.

Of course if you don't like the American system you are welcome to come to Britain where not only would extreme right wing views be expressed as abhorrent to the society at large, you'd soon find yourself in prison where you might find people have rather opposed views to yours and you would have a jolly old time discussing your "rights for holocaust denial and racism discussion" in person face to face with them.

The dscussion might not go as well as you'd hoped.
[doublepost=1536408113][/doublepost]

No ones opinion is being oppressed, suppressed. He is free to stand outside in the street, publish his own papers, radio show or whatever.

He isn't protected if he wanted to stand in my garden saying the same thing on my land. That would definitely earn a swift "Get off my land" reward.

Completely different things.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the 21st century, but speakers corner and every major public online platform aren’t the same thing.

 

[Adam Warlock]

One of this guy’s myriad followers shot up a pizzeria and threatened several lives. Others have spent years attacking and harassing the Sandy Hook parents and ruining their lives. Still think it’s all fun and games, and about simple disagreement of dissenting opinions? It would do everyone a world of good if people would stop pretending like every conflict in this world is as basic as a discussion of opposing viewpoints over coffee.

We'd be shutting down a lot of mosques, for example, if this is the way of it. But I'll wait while you explain how 'different' that would be.

 

[ravenstar]

Again, I believe Americans are allowed to say anything they like in public no matter how disagreeable the content.

As with any right, even free speech is not absolute. One cannot, for but one example, incite a riot. The problem is that far too many idiots feel that rights are free from responsibilities, and believe that their rights are absolute above everyone else's rights. Just as the claim of "fake news" has come to mean the speaker has no interest in facts, "free speech" has become the banner of people who have no regard for the rest of society. Disregard enough of the population with irresponsible behavior, and those "rights" some consider absolute will be taken away.