Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The "right" a company has can depend on how much dominance they may have in a particular market and the reason/intent behind the blocking or restrictions. Android and iOS control nearly 100% of the mobile OS market with iOS currently having around 55% share in the U.S. Apple not only limits app access (restricting alternative app stores, sideloading, etc.) on iPhones/IOS they sell but also those sold by third-party retailers, and even restricts what end users can do. Antitrust laws and regulations are meant to prevent dominant companies from using their position to unfairly control/influence activities in the particular market(s).

If Apple were to show that removal of Twitter from the app store is justified, it wouldn't necessarily be an issue. My main point was that companies having too much control of a market (like mobile OS) can be problematic, and why antitrust laws and regulations are necessary.
I am no lawyer, but I think anti-trust is a stretch in this situation. If Apple were to remove Twitter, it would not be for the purpose of eliminating competition. It would be because Musk had destroyed the infrastructure and human capital of the company to such a point that Apple could not be assured of basic security and appropriate moderation.

And, yes, moderation is absolutely an essential part of any platform. Apple has every right to be concerned about it when deciding who gets to be in their App Store. It's not only about hate speech, political conspiracies, and lies. How about a school shooter that posts a video that does not get taken down quickly because the moderation team has been decimated? How about videos and other content that exploit minors?

Again, I am not saying that Twitter should be removed, but Apple has every right to make this decision if Twitter lacks the will or staff to moderate content.
 
Apple and Google removed Parler only when Trump moved to the platform. Parler's policies did not change; The censorship did. Can you blame Musk for being concerned about Big Tech's contempt for his political views?

Like Trump or hate him, but censoring him did nothing to silence him... the only tangible effect was to further divide this country. Again, I'm not getting into the right and wrong or a political discussion of left vs right. My point is that the world would be a better place if business stuck to business; on both sides of the isle.
What is being ignored in your post is that it is an offence to incite violence. Now whether we believe that’s what was happening is not our decision to make and clearly we cannot self govern on this. In this litigious society, the companies involved are required to act, short of "allowing it to continue". They have a duty of care whether people like it or not.

Thats why Parler was banned and Twitter was not. Business can not get away with just running business when they have provided a voice and that voice turns illegal.

One of the benefits of Twitter is/was is the immediacy of information it provides. By banning Trump it certainly slowed down his ability to have effect on those who follow him.

So have we ever known Elon to back pedal when he was in the right? Has Trump ever backpedaled when he was caught red handed? LMAO! Stop it! You guys will create excuses and narratives instead of just accepting reality that you see with your own eyes and letting it go. Victims.
These people can articulate better than Trump (clearly) but the reality of the world is that people have a responsibility and are accountable. By yelling Free Speech at the town square this does not dissolve this responsibility yet they’ll just keep screaming.

How do we know it didn't? It is entirely believable that Apple would threaten this or bring the topic up. And then after cooler heads prevailed, Apple backpedals and we hear it was never going to happen with Elon being a good guy and going along with that narrative.
Thats a fantasy. As usual, people do rely not on facts, rather than rely purely on make believe.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: 0339327
If you're going to make up a story, I can do the same. We both wrote tales of fiction there.

Maybe one is right, maybe neither is!
Elon has back-pedalled so many times.

He was buying Twitter and then pulled out, but couldn’t. He was going to lay off 10% of Tesla Staff then didn’t. He backpedaled on harmful statement he made about Dodgecoin. He was going to publicly support Kanye Wests Presidential run, but pulled out. He back-pedalled on making Tesla Private.

He has history and the only fiction here is thinking he doesn’t.
 
Last edited:
Apple and Google, still keeping in their store TikTok that is a platform who is owned by the communist party and that it is able to monitor every USA citizen collecting their data, included faces pictures, but they worry about twitter!
Tim doesn't worry even that he had to modify "AirDrop" function in Apple devices to comply to Chinese liberticide laws!
My compliments my dear hypocritical Tim!

So freedom of speech doesn’t include apps from companies outside of 'Merica?

People have a choice to use it or not, but if people are too stupid and continue to use it, then thats not Apples fault. It’s not Tim that is hypercritical. Apple is allowing people the ability to express that free speech.

You also neglected to mention that the US Government examined TikTok and its data, and allowed it. If Apple banned it, it would be 100% wrong.

The answer here is moderation not stopping it.
 
Not my choice. Apple and twitter don’t allow for bullying or hateful rhetoric.

How’s that for free speech?

As I said, people are always going to say mean things that you disagree with on the internet. Doesn't mean Apple should censor it for you. It doesn't mean they won't. But they shouldn't.

But if you are going to start censoring people then you need to be really careful about what is considered "hateful rhetoric". If you think it's enough to say "hate speech shouldn't be allowed", well, the idea that hate speech exists in the first place as something that should be censored is a left wing idea. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means you're looking at potentially at least half of the people disagreeing with the premise.

If you want to censor something based on a premise that at least half of people disagree with, at least acknowledge it. Don't pretend that "hateful rhetoric" is some idea that we all agree with, because it isn't.
 
As I said, people are always going to say mean things that you disagree with on the internet. Doesn't mean Apple should censor it for you. It doesn't mean they won't. But they shouldn't.
They never mentioned censoring it. That’s just people's fantasy.

But if you are going to start censoring people then you need to be really careful about what is considered "hateful rhetoric". If you think it's enough to say "hate speech shouldn't be allowed", well, the idea that hate speech exists in the first place as something that should be censored is a left wing idea. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means you're looking at potentially at least half of the people disagreeing with the premise.
Hahaha! That’s ridiculous. Since when has it ever been a left wing idea. Right wing Governments all over the world do this. I’d love to know the basis for that little gem. Firstly, I’d love for you to explain what you think a left wing idea is, because you clearly don’t know. I’ll give you a start. Left wing is an ideology that seeks social equality. How is what you said left wing? Lolol. Right wing on the other hand is about hierarchy and inequality as a natural order.

So what was a left wing idea again?

If you want to censor something based on a premise that at least half of people disagree with, at least acknowledge it. Don't pretend that "hateful rhetoric" is some idea that we all agree with, because it isn't.
Well that’s pretty obvious. If half the people disagree then obviously half the people don’t agree. Duh…
 
They never mentioned censoring it. That’s just people's fantasy.

You've said this many times in the thread. The fact that people thought it was on the cards means many started discussing the concept. Just because it's been confirmed they weren't considering doing it, doesn't mean people aren't still discussing the concept.

I guess you don't like hypotheticals, but it doesn't look like people are going to stop so you may as well give it up.

Hahaha! That’s ridiculous. Since when has it ever been a left wing idea. Right wing Governments all over the world do this. I’d love to know the basis for that little gem. Firstly, I’d love for you to explain what you think a left wing idea is, because you clearly don’t know. I’ll give you a start. Left wing is an ideology that seeks social equality. How is what you said left wing? Lolol. Right wing on the other hand is about hierarchy and inequality as a natural order.

So what was a left wing idea again?

Sure it is. The left are constantly pushing censorship of "hate". That is completely obvious to anyone paying attention.

Well that’s pretty obvious. If half the people disagree then obviously half the people don’t agree. Duh…

Which is why I said "If you want to censor something based on a premise that at least half of people disagree with, at least acknowledge it. Don't pretend that "hateful rhetoric" is some idea that we all agree with, because it isn't."

People in a leftist bubble often cite hate speech as a valid reason for censorship.
 
People in a leftist bubble often cite hate speech as a valid reason for censorship.
Clearly you have no idea what left wing means, so there is no point continuing this with you.

It is really appropriate to give the power of censorship to a non governmental entity to further act as prosecutor, judge and jury?

In conclusion, it is my sincere wish that we, as Americans unite and look past the political divide. While social media and online forums are a wonderful place for discussion, of which this is a prime example, they do little to bread unity across the issues that divide us. As such, it is my hope that people opt for a break from the thump tapping and get back to the friend making…in the real world.
We agree on a lot of things even though we have our stark different views.

I’m not going to give a history lesson (for which I’m sure people are glad), but I will say that from the days of controlling the behaviour of people with periodic public executions to dissuade, or persuade people to act in a certain way (which failed over time) we eventually moved to a society where we police each other. Something so simple as parents saying ‘don’t talk with your mouth full' or ad campaigns of 'drink drive, your a bloody idiot' with peers checking the behaviours of people etc etc.. Society has changed where it is much more effective to censor each other rather than have governments do it. Religions do it, family do it, friends do it and social media moderators do it. There is less need for Governments systems to do it because people can do it better than they can.

I agree that social media and political rivalry has done a lot of harm in the US, as it has in places like Australia, France and Germany. We used to generally be moderates, but the division that has been caused has certainly caused major problems. I think radicals on the far left and the far right are the biggest threat to us.

I have never written to a politician in my life, but spurred on by some of these discussions (and your comments here are similar), this morning I wrote to my local federal member of parliament, who I voted against this last federal election in Australia. This member won her seat again and was one of the only members in the conservative (right wing) party who actually got an increased voting margin In the country, as her party was thrown out at the last election. I thanked her for her contribution and her recent involvement in going against her own party to protect the rights of LGBTQI+ people of the society, voting for an independent commission against corruption (against her party) in federal government and censuring the previous prime minister for his recent behaviour where he secretly appointed himself as minister of 5 portfolios without telling the actually ministers and misleading the country. (Yeah, right wing politics in Australia is on the nose). I got a lovely letter back from said member of parliament.

Point being that like you, we can appreciate political rivals and we should be able to have positive discussions if we just stop the partisan views and listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0339327
it is my sincere wish that we, as Americans unite and look past the political divide

Unfortunately I‘m afraid it‘s too late. Rather than engaging in critical rational thought people devour slogans, half baked truths, and selfish ideas. Dr. King saw it all coming when saying nothing pains people more than having to think. John F Kennedy saw its approach when he encouraged Americans to focus our vision on the greater good rather than on ourselves. And on the world stage I’m afraid what the greatest generation sacrificed for us all was in vain.
 
“Twitter Inc. again suspended Kanye West’s account after the musician and designer posted a swastika in a tweet that the social-media platform’s owner, Elon Musk, said violated its rules.”

-Wall Street Journal, December 02, 2022 03:56 a.m. EST
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve09090
Clearly you have no idea what left wing means, so there is no point continuing this with you.

You're getting hung up on nothing. The point I was making is that it's mainly the left that is using the idea of 'hate speech' to call for censorship - so if people are going to bandy the term about without any qualification, they should realise they're probably in a bubble, and be reminded that the idea of 'hate speech' being something that needs to be censored is not some principle that's accepted by default.

It is these bubbles that resulted in Twitter censoring based on their left perspective in the first place. I don't know if you saw the podcast between Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde and Jack Dorsey, but they seemed genuinely surprised that normal people could take issue with their policy.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: steve09090
You're getting hung up on nothing. The point I was making is that it's mainly the left that is using the idea of 'hate speech' to call for censorship - so if people are going to bandy the term about without any qualification, they should realise they're probably in a bubble, and be reminded that the idea of 'hate speech' being something that needs to be censored is not some principle that's accepted by default.

It is these bubbles that resulted in Twitter censoring based on their left perspective in the first place. I don't know if you saw the podcast between Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde and Jack Dorsey, but they seemed genuinely surprised that normal people could take issue with their policy.
The point being. How can you say "The Left are responsible for hate speech" when
1) you don’t know what the left is.
2) you provide no evidence that it is "only the left".

Sorry, but your ridiculous bias makes it impossible to have a bipartisan conversation.
 
“Twitter Inc. again suspended Kanye West’s account after the musician and designer posted a swastika in a tweet that the social-media platform’s owner, Elon Musk, said violated its rules.”

-Wall Street Journal, December 02, 2022 03:56 a.m. EST
So much for that lie being spread about Elon allowing anything to go on there. Violate the TOS, and you're still gone as it should be. Proving yet again the advertisers paused their campaigns for no reason other than pressure from activist groups.
 
The point being. How can you say "The Left are responsible for hate speech" when
1) you don’t know what the left is.
2) you provide no evidence that it is "only the left".

Sorry, but your ridiculous bias makes it impossible to have a bipartisan conversation.

If you really want to pretend that it's not mainly the left that is talking about "hate speech", go for it. Some people really will try to say the sky is green in order not to face what's going on.

We have a situation where the left is equating many things to the right of them as hate speech, and that results in things like misgendering being a bannable offense on Twitter. Or am I missing something where it was actually the right pushing for people who don't agree with gender ideology to be banned from Twitter? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what the left is.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: steve09090
If you really want to pretend that it's not mainly the left that is talking about "hate speech", go for it. Some people really will try to say the sky is green in order not to face what's going on.

We have a situation where the left is equating many things to the right of them as hate speech, and that results in things like misgendering being a bannable offense on Twitter. Or am I missing something where it was actually the right pushing for people who don't agree with gender ideology to be banned from Twitter? Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know what the left is.
Wow. A lot of angst going on there. Calm down a bit. A lot of people don’t know what left wing is and use the term incorrectly. Why hate people when you don’t even know what it is? Relax dude.
 
So much for that lie being spread about Elon allowing anything to go on there. Violate the TOS, and you're still gone as it should be. Proving yet again the advertisers paused their campaigns for no reason other than pressure from activist groups.

That was my thought as well.
 
As I said, people are always going to say mean things that you disagree with on the internet. Doesn't mean Apple should censor it for you. It doesn't mean they won't. But they shouldn't.

But if you are going to start censoring people then you need to be really careful about what is considered "hateful rhetoric". If you think it's enough to say "hate speech shouldn't be allowed", well, the idea that hate speech exists in the first place as something that should be censored is a left wing idea. It doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means you're looking at potentially at least half of the people disagreeing with the premise.

If you want to censor something based on a premise that at least half of people disagree with, at least acknowledge it. Don't pretend that "hateful rhetoric" is some idea that we all agree with, because it isn't.
Half the people want hate speech online? Says who?

Anonymity is the reason why such speech is so pervasive online.

There are little repercussions online. Perhaps they need to start connecting names to accounts?

We all know what happens when a racist is outed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
So much for that lie being spread about Elon allowing anything to go on there. Violate the TOS, and you're still gone as it should be. Proving yet again the advertisers paused their campaigns for no reason other than pressure from activist groups.

Interesting. Are you ok with Elon's censorship of West?
 
Elon played the victim by exaggerating an issue that didn’t exist to begin with. Apple became a bad guy to many based on misinformation put out by a known troll.

I've had doubts that there was ever an issue or threat to Twitter here. Whether Musk genuinely thought there was or not is debatable too.
 
I am no lawyer, but I think anti-trust is a stretch in this situation. If Apple were to remove Twitter, it would not be for the purpose of eliminating competition. It would be because Musk had destroyed the infrastructure and human capital of the company to such a point that Apple could not be assured of basic security and appropriate moderation.

And, yes, moderation is absolutely an essential part of any platform. Apple has every right to be concerned about it when deciding who gets to be in their App Store. It's not only about hate speech, political conspiracies, and lies. How about a school shooter that posts a video that does not get taken down quickly because the moderation team has been decimated? How about videos and other content that exploit minors?

Again, I am not saying that Twitter should be removed, but Apple has every right to make this decision if Twitter lacks the will or staff to moderate content.

Which is why I stated Apple removing the Twitter app wouldn't necessarily be an issue. My comments have been more about dominance/market power and what rights a company may or may not have. A company with a dominant position in a market that engages in anticompetitive behavior can be violating antitrust laws and regulations, even if it is their platform.
 
Tim Apple got hammered walking down the hall in some D.C. building. He can't escape he bowed down to a communist regime. This shoots the company's human rights stand through the heart and stomps on it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.