Elon Musk Claims Apple Has 'Mostly Stopped' Offering Ads on Twitter and Is Making Moderation Demands

[hans1972]

Again - I'm aware of it being legally protected - you don't need to comment on that any longer. Apple should be criticized as they would be extremely hypocritical if they went after Twitter because it is no longer a leftist echo chamber when their own censorship is unforgivable:

In 2018, Apple's restrictions on sending the word "Taiwan" or sending an emoji representing the flag of Taiwan on iDevices using a Chinese country code or language settings caused the devices to crash.[60][61][62]

In 2018, Apple removed apps from the Chinese App Store that allowed users to access content forbidden by the Chinese government. Many of these apps gave users access to virtual private networks that could allow them to circumvent the Great Firewall of China. Apple did not cite any Chinese laws, but claimed that the apps broke the laws of their local governments. Among the apps removed was VyprVPN, an app by Golden Frog, a company which had filed an amicus brief supporting Apple during the FBI–Apple encryption dispute. Apple is the first foreign global technology company to concede to the Chinese government's demands.[63]

Artists who reference the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre have had some or all of their music removed from iTunes, including Jacky Cheung Hok-yau and Tat Ming Pair.[64]

In 2021, Apple removed a Quran app and a Bible app from the China App Store.[65][66] Apple also removed a popular daily prayer app for Muslims from China.[67] Jehovah's Witnesses' app was removed in May 2020.[68]

In October 2022, following the Beijing Sitong Bridge protest, Apple release an update which started to limit AirDrop function on iPhone and iPad purchased in China, resulting the receiving from "Everyone" option changed to "Everyone for 10 minutes".[69]

In November 2022, Apple removed the TaiwanPlus app from the China App Store.[70]

In April 2018, Apple blocked the Telegram app in Iran in response to concerns that access to the encrypted messaging service presented a threat to Iranian national security.[72]

Nothing of this is new. Apple tries to follow the laws in each country they operate. You can find hundreds of other examples also if you had been following Apple news.

They also banned all betting apps in Norway a few years ago and no ones cares about that.

 

[hans1972]

So "Apple was just following orders" is an acceptable response to you?

Yes, Apple tries to follow the laws in each country.

Do you think Apple should violate laws they disagree with?

 

[steve09090]

What kind of standard is this? Others are allowed to argue for it, but if I argue against it I'm "so angry"?

When have I claimed Apple has actually done or is about to do it? I like Apple.

It's not you, so don't take it personally. It's a general comment. Your point is one that has been repeated in infinitum, and it is indicative of this entire thread so I replied to the point you were making.

There are many people here that are definitely angry about Apple cancelling Twitter on the basis of censorship and free speech. But there is no basis for them to be angry, as it is simply not a thing.

 

[steve09090]

Apple should be doing what Musk is doing, championing free speech & civil debates, clearly, Apple has a different agenda for us and it’s not Freedom. Time for a new CEO.

Based on what? What has Apple actually done here?

 

[hans1972]

What exactly do you think this comment means? Some form or another of this drivel is regurgitated over and over as if it means something. So what if there is no legal obligation? That is not the final measure of anything. Free speech is a universal concept that drove the inclusion of it in the founding if this country. It doesn't merely manifest out of a document. It is something decent people believe in. If you actively work against free speech in some way, you deserve whatever flak you get.

Apple isn't a champion of free speech and never has been. Where have you been in the last 15-20 years?

It's all about being curated and creating a walled garden. And it's a major reason for it success and customer satisfaction.

I don't want Apple to be a free speech champion or to allow almost every kind of content in their App Store and other stores and products. Everything doesn't have to support free speech as long as there is some arena available for it.

 

[steve09090]

What exactly do you think this comment means? Some form or another of this drivel is regurgitated over and over as if it means something. So what if there is no legal obligation? That is not the final measure of anything. Free speech is a universal concept that drove the inclusion of it in the founding if this country. It doesn't merely manifest out of a document. It is something decent people believe in. If you actively work against free speech in some way, you deserve whatever flak you get.

2 quick points of order, and I assume you're talking about 'Merica because you're talking about "this country" (like it's the only one that counts).

1. The stealing/taking of land (for power/money) drove the founding or colonisation of 'Merica not free speech. The indigenous people of 'Merica had no free speech.
2. The world is bigger than 'Merica and Apple is a global company. Twitter is a global country. It's got naught to do with 'Merica.

 

[teh_hunterer]

What exactly do you think this comment means? Some form or another of this drivel is regurgitated over and over as if it means something. So what if there is no legal obligation? That is not the final measure of anything. Free speech is a universal concept that drove the inclusion of it in the founding if this country. It doesn't merely manifest out of a document. It is something decent people believe in. If you actively work against free speech in some way, you deserve whatever flak you get.

Absolutely. You said it better than I did.

 

[hans1972]

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

It's easily defended. Freedom of association, an essential part of freedom of speech. Apple might not like what Twitter is doing and don't want to be associated with them because Apple believes its bad for business or their brand.

Just like Musk doesn't want Twitter to be associated with Alex Jones but have no problems with Taliban (according to some posters here).

But Apple isn't going to remove the app because they disagree with Musk. They are going to look if Twitter violates the agreement they have with Apple and the App Store guidelines.

 

[burgman]

Apple should be doing what Musk is doing, championing free speech & civil debates, clearly, Apple has a different agenda for us and it’s not Freedom. Time for a new CEO.

How can so many miss the irony that Musk wants to limit the free speech of Apple and others to do business and support causes they choose to. Berating and bullying because of the loss of cash nothing more. Freedom for me but not for thee is popular in the world Musk and like minded people swim in.

 

[teh_hunterer]

2 quick points of order, and I assume you're talking about 'Merica because you're talking about "this country" (like it's the only one that counts).

1. The stealing/taking of land (for power/money) drove the founding or colonisation of 'Merica not free speech. The indigenous people of 'Merica had no free speech.
2. The world is bigger than 'Merica and Apple is a global company. Twitter is a global country. It's got naught to do with 'Merica.

Perhaps you see it this way because you don't see free speech as a bedrock moral value. My country has no free speech in our constitution, but I think we functionally have free speech to at least some extent because of the example set by the US. It's a bit of a miracle that there is a major power in this world that actually does have free speech enshrined in its constitution, and defended constantly.

And free speech as a concept and as a moral virtue is under constant attack, so it must constantly be recognised and defended.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Why are you linking to Foxnews instead of the article Macrumors had almost a month ago?

Don't you read Macrumors regularly?

Are you referring to this? The actual article is from 9to5.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-to-fight-airdrop-spam-with-new-iphone-setting-launching-widely-next-year.2369761/

 

[Plutonius]

It all about money. Apple wants its 30% cut on the twitter app when users start paying for verified check marks.

 

[steve09090]

Absolutely. You said it better than I did.

Some people clearly don't understand the way the world works. Religion, Politics, and Social conventions are all reasons to prevent free speech and actively occur across every country on Earth. So the contention is that every country that has some part in censoring what people say is not as decent as those who defend free speech.

Perhaps you see it this way because you don't see free speech as a bedrock moral value. My country has no free speech in our constitution, but I think we functionally have free speech to at least some extent because of the example set by the US. It's a bit of a miracle that there is a major power in this world that actually does have free speech enshrined in its constitution, and defended constantly.

And free speech as a concept and as a moral virtue is under constant attack, so it must constantly be recognised and defended.

I don't believe there is anything such as actual free speech. As you've said, Free Speech is a concept. And that is all it is. Living in a country that has Common Laws, Statutes, and the Westminster system of government, and working in Law Enforcement for more years than I want to mention, I know that people do not have the right to say whatever they want when they want.

You could be at a Football match and swear at the umpire and all is good. You do the same in a church and it is not acceptable. But Free Speech and all, right? We have laws that include offences like Offensive Language & Indecent language. If we had free speech, if the US had free speech, those laws would not exist.

It's a concept, and as a concept, it is worth protecting, but people should not kid themselves and think they can say whatever they want when they want (aka free).

Edited: Just looked it up and the US has profanity laws. In some instances, free speech is protected and in others, it is not, based on Case law: Watts v United States 1969. So again, Free Speech is still limited, despite being enshrined in their constitution.

There is no such thing as Free Speech, just the concept of it.

 

[SnappleRumors]

the fact is it's a communication service open to the public. there's no special exclusivity or invitation requirement to participate in the service. all anyone from andorra to zimbabwe needs to participate is a phone number and email address to participate in the global chat.

whether's it's owned by a single private citizen, or a group of general partners, or a state pension fund, or floated on a stock exchange, does not change the fact: a chat service used widely by the public. in other words, a public town square.

I’m not following the distinction people are trying to make between a publicly traded and privately owned company.

Twitter is no different than business at publicly traded Apple or privately owned Bass Pro Shop. They are both private property open to the general public.

 

[teh_hunterer]

Some people clearly don't understand the way the world works. Religion, Politics, and Social conventions are all reasons to prevent free speech and actively occur across every country on Earth. So the contention is that every country that has some part in censoring what people say is not as decent as those who defend free speech.


I don't believe there is anything such as actual free speech. As you've said, Free Speech is a concept. And that is all it is. Living in a country that has Common Laws, Statutes, and the Westminster system of government, and working in Law Enforcement for more years than I want to mention, I know that people do not have the right to say whatever they want when they want.

You could be at a Football match and swear at the umpire and all is good. You do the same in a church and it is not acceptable. But Free Speech and all, right? We have laws that include offences like Offensive Language & Indecent language. If we had free speech, if the US had free speech, those laws would not exist.

It's a concept, and as a concept, it is worth protecting, but people should not kid themselves and think they can say whatever they want when they want (aka free).

Edited: Just looked it up and the US has profanity laws. In some instances, free speech is protected and in others, it is not, based on Case law: Watts v United States 1969. So again, Free Speech is still limited, despite being enshrined in their constitution.

There is no such thing as Free Speech, just the concept of it.

Free speech is a right that existed before any governments were even formed. The US constitution quite specifically recognises that pre-existing right - rather than actually providing it. You can't provide a right to someone that already existed beforehand.

I don't think many people are claiming free speech = you can say literally anything in any context. And making the argument that freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to say literally everything doesn't invalidate it as a bedrock right and moral concept.

We should never take the societies we live in today for granted. They were built on sacrifice and bloodshed and specific values, and they remain in constant danger of toppling over. It's foolhardy to think that western societies are underpinned by default moral values - they aren't. The values that underpin our societies are not shared by much of the world, and can be turned on and abandoned in the blink of an eye, and the slide into tyranny can be quick and waste entire lifetimes.

Maybe this seems a bit dramatic, but it has happened before and will undoubtedly happen again. There are over a billion people living in hellish dictatorship nightmares right now.

 

[vikingjunior]

You brought up the child pornography.
vikingjunior said:
Did you not see all the kiddie porn that had to be removed from Twitter? Apple never said a word until Elon bought it. Totally fake outrage from Apple.

And I responded with:
That's what Apple require of social media apps: An effective moderation team and functionality.


So to iterate, if there were a lot of child pornography on Twitter as you wrote, Apple would require moderation from Twitter and quick removal. And it seems Twitter has that and so isn't violating Apple's guidelines for the App Store.

Apple's idea of "effective" moderation" is based on ideology and that is the real problem. It's ironic that Google and Apple always seem to have an issue with right-wing app moderation but never liberal app moderation.

It's also ironic that Apple never had a problem with Twitter being used as an organizational hub for violence with groups like Antifa. Elon started banning these accounts only recently, so the Twitter moderation team was not effective in this aspect but again Apple never said a word.

 

[A MacBook lover]

Apple's idea of "effective" moderation" is based on ideology and that is the real problem. It's ironic that Google and Apple always seem to have an issue with right-wing app moderation but never liberal app moderation.

It's also ironic that Apple never had a problem with Twitter being used as an organizational hub for violence with groups like Antifa. Elon started banning these accounts only recently, so the Twitter moderation team was not effective in this aspect but again Apple never said a word.

Because they are hypocrites

 

[yaxomoxay]

If a baker puts a previously baked cake in a box in a creative way, then that’s free speech and homophobia is allowed?

No, because at that point it’s the customer that is deciding to accept the message (or creative act if you prefer) that was previously done. In your example, Whoever is performing the creative act does so by his own initiative, and so does the customer; there is no party (owner, customer, state) that compels any other party.

The above example is one that shows that hate speech can be okay depending on where your moral compass sits. And that could be based on your religion, your political view or maybe your experiences.

That’s not what the question was. The question was if the government (in this case the State of Colorado) had the right to compel speech through punitive action. Obviously, the government doesn’t have such right.

Nobody can win this argument because we are all have different views.

That’s why the question had nothing to do with what was said and to whom but only if the state had the right to perform a punitive action that would’ve resulted in compelling a creative act based on its anti-discrimination laws. Hopefully that makes you understand that the question was a bit different, and quite more complex than “owner refused to give cake to two gay individuals.”


Addendum: and all of the above has nothing to do with what’s going on with Twitter and Apple.

 

[SnappleRumors]

So if a bakery refuses to do business with a gay couple, that’s free speech…

Nope it isn’t and SCOTUS didn’t think so either.

 

[Burger Thing]

Good. I am happy pulling out of Twitter. It's a private company and they can do what they like. And it seems they have a pretty good idea where Twitter is heading.

In the meantime Putin and the likes are already celebrating. They found an useful idiot who can help them again spreading nonsense in future country destabilisation projects.

But yeah, you peeps go ahead and celebrate freedom of speech.

 

[DMG35]

That's only because you lack knowledge about white supremacist.

So now it is reduced to well known "bad people/bad organisations" should be bad but unknown to you "bad people/bad organisations" should be allowed until they generate questionable content.

Lol, that's exactly what YOU were saying. "I don't follow the Taliban and haven't seen any bad tweets so it's ok." Dude what are you even talking about at this point? Never-mind, I don't really want to know at this point.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Good. I am happy pulling out of Twitter.

The good news about all of this is that Twitter might finally die.
The bad news about all of this is that now everyone talks about Twitter.

 

[AppleFan1998]

I wonder when there will be any agreement between Tim and Elon.. this Elon twitter take over is good with the goal of freedom of speech, but there has to be some kind of filter for hate speech or some kind of hide certain comments function to make it work. Once that’s there, you can choose to participate or ignore certain comment threads just like low, medium, high level of security for accessing the net.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Dear Muskrats and self-proclaimed "free speech absolutists"

By your high moral standards and adherence to everything that is yet fall into the devil's hands, Musk should never associate with Apple or any of the hundreds of other freedom-hating, woke-lib corporations pulling their woke ad dollars from the new and superior, $8/month but somehow still Free Speech™ Twitter 2.0.

You think like Musk and thus you prioritize freedom of speech over profits.

"I don't care about the economics at all", Musk said about buying Twitter during a TED-talk interview in April before buying Twitter.

So if Elon doesn't care about the money and just wants free speech above anything else, why would you go against his words and care about the huge Apple and it's dirty, woke money?

You don't need the lib CEO and his terrible, free speech hating corporation.

Don't stoop so low to please the woke moralists just because you need keep the lights on at Free Speech™ Twitter 2.0 HQ -You're much better than that!

/s 👏🤣

 

[subi257]

App Store belongs to Apple so Not sure why Elon is stepping on Apple's toes now.

Because he's hurting bad, with Apple cutting off almost all advertising on the twit's Twitter and a lot of the other advertisers pulling back. What did he expect. No major corporation/company wants to be associated with Twitter as it becomes a cesspool.