Nonsense. You said the system would restrict who can see what you’re saying based on some arbitrary “democratic” rating system.
This is censorship and a terrible idea.
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 Removes Five of Six Infowars Podcast Series From iTunes Directory
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nonsense. You said the system would restrict who can see what you’re saying based on some arbitrary “democratic” rating system.
This is censorship and a terrible idea.
No, hate speech is hate speech. Liberals don’t like hate speech. Conservatives seem to not only be ok with it, but vote for people spewing it. Just calling a spade a spade. It’s easy, If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t say racist things and don’t vote for racists. Simple as that.Hence the snowflake virusEspecially in U.S. where something someone doesn't like to hear is basically hate speech for them. Rationality doesn't exist it seems.
Go forth and learn something about terms before you call them out. "Protected speech" has nothing to do with Apple's decision on how to moderate what gets stored on servers they own.
What's infecting this planet fast is a misinformed notion that peddlers of fringe obsessions like white nationalism or collections of conspiracy theories --about anything! from salad to apple pie!-- have some sort of innate entitlement to either space on privately owned servers or time in the lives of people who consider themselves consumers of mainstream infotainment. Neither assumption is valid.
As far as access to information is concerned, there's plenty space out there, a nook or cranny for the tamest or wildest of ideas. The internet is a gigantic and expansible virtual space. Browsers unencumbered by parental or workplace-applied filters do let one bookmark whatever's found pleasurable when encountered. You do use your personal and not a corporate-owned computing device to seek out NSFW type material, right?
However, if one desires placement amid mainstream providers of news and entertainment, the world is still largely as it ever was: go forth and earn it. As a provider, one eventually get what's earned.... maybe... and more to the point --and more demonstrably-- is that if you're aiming for mainstream placement, well, duh, aim for mainstream appreciation in your offerings to the public. Don't be offering sriracha-dressed silken tofu to an audience that might have been expecting raspberry sauce on vanilla ice cream. You, and they, will be disappointed.
Apple was the chef in the matter of Apple v Alex Jones' infotainment, and decided that what Alex Jones has been serving up is not for their customers. Their customers are of course free to dine elsewhere, Alex Jones is free to construct another kind of offering, and Apple's free to change its mind about what it offers to the public.
Bottom line in the US today, neither hate speech nor conspiracy theories are mainstream fare. Not yet.
Isn't that what Apple and Youtube is doing now with Alex Jones? This would just assign a number to it and allow other companies/people to see it. You would still be allowed to upload videos and people could still see it if they had similar scores.
Last edited:
When they start banning texts and emails sent on their operating systems and services, then we're getting into that territory. Apple is not going to associate their brand and their stores with this stuff, it's right there in their policy when you sign up. A television network would do the same, but I'm sure Fox News has an open slot for this guy since he also considers his stuff to be "entertainment". If you don't believe me, that's his lawyer's argument in the Sandy Hook case. They say it's "unfortunate" that some people are taking this seriously...which sort of throws a wrench in the argument some people have here that Jones is taking on the mainstream media. He's not, according to his own intent, he's looking to entertain you with conspiracy theories...all so he can sell his "health" products.
You mean one of the days ANOTHER crazy Jones supporter... don’t forget the pizza place one of his nut-job supporters terrorized.
Google can, if it wishes remove all of Jones's content (website, podcast etc) and leave no trace of his existence on their search engine - if they so choose.
They are a private company. Constitutional chilling of free speech applies only to Congress and the laws they create - not private entities or persons.
Last edited:
Wow. You listen to Alex Jones four hours per day, six days per week. I totally believe you! I mean, since you said it and all.
Btw, “hahahaha” is not an effective argument, unless you’re in the third grade.
Take a minute, reload your thoughts, and try again. I command you to try again. You will try again.
This isn’t how debating works. If I’m making a point, then the point is by definition what I think said point is. You are free to disagree but it is utterly silly for you to tell me what my own point is. You can tell me what you think that point was (or construct a strawman if you wish) and I can reply and tell you “that wasn’t the point.”
I understand it perfectly well.
Wrong. By your definition nobody would ever be committing censorship. Even in oppressive regimes like North Korea there exist underground sources of speech. Does that mean they aren’t censoring Western films, for instance, as long as I can walk down the block and buy a USB stick full of prohibited films from someone?
(And, no, before you run off on another tangent, I’m not equating Apple with North Korea. Merely shooting down your incorrect redefinition of censorship.)
Sorry, try again. I never insisted anything was a first amendment issue. I am discussing the principle of free speech, not the first amendment. The fact that private entities are free to suppress speech is not what I am discussing here.
I don't need to listen to all that he says to hear "virtually everything he has to say". hahaha was not my "argument". That was the part you skimmed over. Calling out the threat to the oligarchy is more conspiracy bs, it's hilarious.
Ahh, more words recently constructed for you by your clan and repeated. This is too easy, and you call others tools?
Ok. It’s a fair argument on why you feel it’s different. But this is going to lead to the same place the App Store has already gone. Apple is giving itself censorship power and gleefully using it, so governments can and will step in to have them act as enforcement arms. Apple already does it in China on the App Store. Tim Cook is failing to take a principled stand on free speech and setting a terrible precedent.
AJ makes videos and podcasts. Providing video evidence to fulfill your challenge is sufficient. I'm not going to transcribe his videos into text just because you can't be bothered to click the link I provided.
He has called for violence, but that doesn’t matter because Apple is under no obligation to provide him with a megaphone. The first amendment only protects you against the government infringement on speech, private enterprises like Apple are under no such restrictions.
So you shot down my incorrect redefinition by using what you agree is a really dumb analogy that isn't applicable to what we're discussing?
So we can add "analogies" to the list of items you're butchering today.
I still wouldn't compare the two, Apple is following the law in those countries. If it were illegal to protect the privacy of users by not providing a backdoor, it would be another story.
Strawman. I did not “agree” that anything is “a really dumb analogy.” I clarified, in the hopes that you can follow along with a fairly basic reasoned example, that Apple is not the equivalent of an oppressive government regime.
This does not negate the point being made whatsoever. Care to actually address it?
Sure it does. It’s not only ok, but should be encouraged. You don’t have to give these people a megaphone to spread their BS propaganda and hate speech. They can go yell on a street corner and look like the nut-jobs they are. Apple giving them a platform only legitimizes them.
In addition to what you wrote, discrimination laws are just that - laws that are codified within each states judicial system (civil laws). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is such a thing as "criminal discrimination" - ie: discrimination that is codified within criminal laws - it remains within the civil jurisdiction.
Free speech is not offered the same protection as anti-discrimination laws - ie: you can't sue me nor Google or Apple for violating your First Amendment right to free speech - though it would be amusing. Another example, would be if you wrote a opinion piece and sent it to the New York Times and they decided not to publish it - you can't sue them for violating your freedom of speech. LOL
You can however sue the government, if they try to chill your speech.
Lastly, one cannot meaningfully compare (equally) free speech and discrimination laws. It truly is an apples to oranges (basic metaphor here - gotta keep it simple for some in the audience) comparison. They are not the same. I'm not saying you can't compare and contrast them, you can - but it is a fools errand with no meaningful conclusion at the end.
A more fruitful comparative analysis would be...say...the scope of anti-discrimination laws - now that would be interesting.
I did. I agreed with you, it was a dumb analogy with no application to the conversation. Simultaneously backing away from your own point and insisting it needs to be answered isn't doing you any favors.
You just keep shouting that this is a censorship issue, regardless of context or fact. That you now have to shoehorn your own NK references while also stating it's not a good 1:1 should probably give you an idea that you're backing a losing horse.
Should we leave ISIS recruitment videos on youtube as well? Everyone can decide for themselves...
Searching ‘Alex Jones’ on DuckDuckGo puts infowars.com right at the top of the search... Same for yahoo.com.
The site doesn’t even appear on Google.
I’ve heard of him and have read some stories about this and that, but I think Apple and these other tech companies are wrong to do this. This now looks like his sites are being obfuscated by the most popular search engine and banned outright by media services, and for me that’s a dangerous precedent...
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. Sometimes you’re going to listen to things that you’re going to agree with, then other times something you don’t agree with. Intelligent debate will generally root out the wheat from the chaff. It’s possible that this ‘ban’ will just fuel the ‘conspiracy nuts’ into feeling even more targeted.
The site doesn’t even appear on Google.
I’ve heard of him and have read some stories about this and that, but I think Apple and these other tech companies are wrong to do this. This now looks like his sites are being obfuscated by the most popular search engine and banned outright by media services, and for me that’s a dangerous precedent...
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. Sometimes you’re going to listen to things that you’re going to agree with, then other times something you don’t agree with. Intelligent debate will generally root out the wheat from the chaff. It’s possible that this ‘ban’ will just fuel the ‘conspiracy nuts’ into feeling even more targeted.