Apple's free speech would be violated if they were forced to include podcasts in their directory that they do not want to.
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
Isn’t that always the case with these people. They play the victim to bully their critics. Classic propaganda technique.
If Jones is dropped down the deepest, blackest hole imaginable it's a good day for humanity.
Don't care that conspiracy nuts will feel more targeted. I'd rather keep the main group agitated and feeling isolated than give them more company.
Nobody is stopping Alex from hosting his own podcast and video downloads.
He's readily accessible on the net.
Private companies are under no obligation to host, promote or list content they don't care to.
This is a good move by these tech companies that was long overdue.
Alex Jones is complete racist, incendiary trash who hawks BS pseudoscience nonsense disinformation, products and hatred.
He's readily accessible on the net.
Private companies are under no obligation to host, promote or list content they don't care to.
This is a good move by these tech companies that was long overdue.
Alex Jones is complete racist, incendiary trash who hawks BS pseudoscience nonsense disinformation, products and hatred.
I wanted to reply to you, but seeing you took over 50% of conversation on this thread to argue your points. You must have cried when Trump won.
That’s a good question. Is infowars responsible for inciting beheading’s and the like? I’m not a frequent visitor of infowars, or his other sites so I’ve no idea. Nor indeed do I search for ISIS vids.
It’s worth remembering though, that if someone is hell bent on searching for something, it can usually be found.
You are right. Private companies are not capable of suppressing speech - because they are not bound by the confines for which the amendment was ratified.
What Apple did, any private business owner is capable of doing.
If I own a store, and my employee decides to create a sign that says "Homosexuals are the devil" and put it outside of my business, or inside the business window. I can not only fire him/her - but they can't turn around and sue me for suppressing their freedom of speech.
1A was enacted to protect the people of this country from the government. The moment the government prevents you from saying "Donald Trump sucks!" - then we have a problem. It's purpose was to always give the people rights to openly voice their displeasure with their government, without the government retaliating by silencing their "speech". It has no bearing in the private sector.
1A is not to be confused with anti-discrimination laws (most often people do).
...but then stopped when you realized your entire argument is "U mad bro"?
Targeted maybe wasn’t the right word. Think more along the lines of them feeling more special to be targeted.
EDIT: And just because something is in the deepest, blackest hole ever, doesn’t mean it can’t be found
You come across as quite hateful. Would you advocate your own banishment from the internet?
It shows up right under a wikipedia link to him when I search Google. Perhaps you are expecting it to say "Infowars: Official Site" like it does on Bing?
Wrong. You didn’t agree with me because that simply isn’t what I said. You can’t agree with me on something I didn’t say. You can call it a “dumb analogy” all you want and that’s your prerogative, however silly it may be. But what is indisputable is that *I didn’t say that.* You did.
I didn’t “back away” from any point and I’m not looking to curate any favors.
I’m not shouting anything, I’m having a discussion. Fact is precisely what is at issue here. Apple’s actions are, factually, censorship.
I’m not “shoehorning” anything. Your definition of censorship is wrong and bordering on moronic. The NK example perfectly illustrates why that is the case.
I mentioned that to preemptively shoot down the silly strawman I knew you would construct, and are continuing to construct in spite of that. Do you have anything of substance to say?
I can't have my cake and eat it too.
If I wish to retain the freedoms of my business, I must also respect the wishes of Google. It would be irrational of me to demand that Google be forced to allow someone to use their platform (conduct business with them), but in the same breath say I should be free to conduct business with whomever I like and no one can force me to do business with someone....blah blah blah...government of out of my pocket...blah blah blah.
You see how that works?
Personally, I think Google/Apple/(insert any company here) should do whatever they want to promote the values of their business. They can't chill free speech. And no, it's not the same and censorship. Censorship requires regulation. Regulation is enacted by the government. Google/Apple is not the US government.
Are you defending this because you really believe in private companies abilities to do as they wish or because you don’t like Alex Jones and the things he says?
I'm quite certain the group that follows Alex Jones couldn't possibly be more "special" than they already are.
I have no idea why I would come across as hateful when I'm arguing against the guy who said parents lied about their children being murdered.
To answer your question specifically: The mods of this website have every right to silence me at any moment for any reason they see fit. I am not entitled to post here, I have no right to define what I am allowed to post here, and I don't have the right to insist they let me post here.
And yet if for any reason they banned me, it wouldn't be a violation of my freedom of speech.
Again, I don’t believe that reverse racism is a real or concerning thing. She was a victim of racism and fought back in a stupid way. That’s all.
Sure it would. It’s a censorship action MacRumors has every right to take but it’s still censorship. I’ve been censored on here before by mods. It’s under their purview but it’s still censorship.
I have always been a Tim Cook supporter until now. The suppression of free speech/debate is NEVER healthy. And what exactly are the rules for banishment? Vague concepts like "hate speech" which can be morphed into anything a platform owner wants it to be? This is a VERY slippery slope and it is ironic that the left accuses the right of being "fascists" while THEY actively suppress freedom of word and thought. Hypocrites much?
Bad move Tim. Please stay out of politics.
Bad move Tim. Please stay out of politics.
But I perceive you as being hateful. I call for you to be banned from the internet. Your logic, not mine.I'm quite certain the group that follows Alex Jones couldn't possibly be more "special" than they already are.
I have no idea why I would come across as hateful when I'm arguing against the guy who said parents lied about their children being murdered.
To answer your question specifically: The mods of this website have every right to silence me at any moment for any reason they see fit. I am not entitled to post here, I have no right to define what I am allowed to post here, and I don't have the right to insist they let me post here.
And yet if for any reason they banned me, it wouldn't be a violation of my freedom of speech.
Sorry man, but it counts as bullying and he should've been removed a long time ago. I have a friend that lost his young daughter in the Sandy Hook Massacre. Alex saying that was fake and that the people involved were acting was beyond disgusting and the worst kind of bullying ever. Glad he's gone. These companies have policies that people have to adhere to. If I invite you into my house, you have the right to say whatever you want, but I also have the right to throw you out.
You're not really arguing anything, or at least not arguing it well. You're just repeating the same bad definition of censorship, only now with terrible analogies that you even agreed were bad thus the reason you admitted you needed to deflect criticism you expected due to said dumb analogies.
Don't get angry that your arguments are picked apart so easily. Make better arguments.
I’m just trying to understand how far to take something. If some say it’s a good thing Apple removed Jones’s podcasts from its search directory then why aren’t these same people demanding Google adjust their algorithms so Jones doesn’t show up in searches? Why don’t they demand Twitter shadow ban him? Right now if I type Alex Jones in Twitter’s search his official Twitter account is the first thing that shows up.