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.
Elon Musk Claims Apple Has 'Mostly Stopped' Offering Ads on Twitter and Is Making Moderation Demands
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And promoted it before hand on twitter. That's called premeditation for those that don't know.
Why? Give any valid, rational reasons as to why free speech is a negative to society, and how Twitter leadership censoring ideas and opinions that they didn’t agree with, was better.
Justify closing out the longest-running newspaper in America for publishing a very real, true and credible news story - because they didn’t like it.
I’m here to be open and understanding. I’d be interested to hear how anyone could possibly defend the behavior.
All I’ve received so far is vitriol and laugh emojis.
Elon is free to say what he wants, as are so many of the accounts now spouting all the hate they like.
Apple (and any other company) is equally as free to not respond, pull their ads and even pull Twitter from their app store. It's the free market, a long held principle by those same people who tout free speech. They need to reconcile this hypocrisy.
Tim Cook is staying above it and should be congratulated IMO.
Apple (and any other company) is equally as free to not respond, pull their ads and even pull Twitter from their app store. It's the free market, a long held principle by those same people who tout free speech. They need to reconcile this hypocrisy.
Tim Cook is staying above it and should be congratulated IMO.
Not a popular opinion on this forum it seems (seems like the popular, "cool" thing to do is bash Elon on every thread having to do with him, with really high class posts like #25 in this thread taking the cake), but I agree. Hopefully he'll stand his ground and not give in to the fake outrage / virtue-signaling from big spenders.
If I have to explain to you how hate speech or rhetoric villainizing certain populations, LBGTQ comes to mind with the recent shooting, leads to real life violence, you will never understand.
Free speech isn't a negative. But you don't get to make it anywhere you please. It's not limitless.
That's silly. There are dozens of commonly accepted exceptions to free speech that exist due to harms. Several have been brought up already.
From Wikipedia:
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.
Last edited:
They conveniently forget or just ignore these facts, as always. Granted, some of this is subjective, like obscenity for example, but others are black and white.
"Do they hate free speech in America?"
A more relevant question: Does Tim Cook like dark or light chocolate?
A more relevant question: Does Tim Cook like dark or light chocolate?
It doesn't. That's just another example of making up stuff and stating it as a fact.
We’ve heard this story before from other developers.
I’m not saying I full trust the guys word but it’s not like Apple hasn’t done this before.
But remember if they say something, it's true. If the "other side" says something, it is misinformation and hate speech.
People don't go to Twitter because it's a private platform, they go there because a) they can express themselves in the place that heaps of people are, and b) heaps of people are there, including those they already know of, and find interesting. It's the de facto public square, at least for a vast chunk of the planet.
That is a hilarious take. You do realise Twitter was run by the left? They purposely and openly enforced their politics on that platform. I watched Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde talk about their policies for hours. This isn't some secret, it's literally what they were saying.
You think those people purposely pushed right wing content up in the algorithm whilst pushing leftist politics? Why even bother with such a flimsy argument?
Source:
Accepting the trans movement as valid is a left wing idea. On pre-Elon Twitter using someone's "deadname", "misgendering" them, purposely using the wrong pronouns, or claiming that men can't be women or women can't be men would have gotten you a ban or suspension. Gender ideology is a left wing idea, and the above examples are considered as actionable "hate speech" only by the left. Thus, Twitter was being censored according to the politics of the left. If your political opinion was that gender ideology isn't valid, you were not able to say your political opinion on the platform
Vijaya Gadde said on a podcast with Tim Pool, Joe Rogan and Jack Dorsey that if you misgender someone on Twitter, it's a bannable offense.
Last edited:
One could argue Twitter is anti free speech by charging $8 to have promoted tweets. So if I don’t pay, my tweets get pushed to the bottom basically and no one ever sees them?
Apple, like you and me, can spend its money how it wants. Are you suggesting Apple be forced to advertise on Twitter? Sounds like socialism to me.
Free speech shouldn't be a left vs right thing. The left used to be the ones who defended free speech, back in the day.
But just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should. Maybe Apple can remove Twitter and legally defend it, but they can't morally defend it. And you've made no attempt to morally defend it.
I'm not some American right wing ultra capitalist - I've voted left all my life, but free speech is paramount to a society that isn't hell to live in, and Apple would be on the wrong side of history for doing this. If they were actually doing it - there is no evidence so far really.
The word "free" in "Free speech" has nothing to do with money. I know AOC said it did so now everyone parrots that, but it is such a bad take.
Last edited:
And what does calling it that get you? Cookies? What's wrong with calling it what is really is?
Again, people that want to define it as a public space are just interested in forcing a private company to publish speech that they don't want to publish.
The ACLU Skokie case you cite involves the government, which is why it is (correctly) protected by free speech.
But that has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about here, because FREE SPEECH DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Just like MacRumors can block me or throw me out from here if I do something they don't approve of, so you can throw me out of your home if I say something insulting.
Free speech laws do not apply to individuals or businesses, they only apply to government censorship.