Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Elon Musk Meets With Apple CEO Tim Cook Amid Claims of Twitter App Store Dispute [Updated]

teh_hunterer said:
Nah, you can't just refuse to engage with my argument while asking me to keep engaging with yours.

To enforce hate speech laws or rules, you need to designate someone to decide what gets censored and what doesn't, and the people who end up doing that in a society are the people you would least want to. And who are they to decide what the rest of us can think and say?
Click to expand...
Do you want the internet to be 4chan?

Again this site has standards. If you want to abuse such standards be my guest but I’ll say good bye to you forever. Else you play nice. Doesn’t that sound much better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jumpthesnark
vipergts2207 said:
The platform owner is good enough to decide. If you don’t like it, use a different platform. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Glad it's that simple for you. As I outlined in my previous post, the morality of it is far more complicated than that.

vipergts2207 said:
If Musk wants to ban West for posting swastikas, that’s his prerogative. Why should popularity of a platform get to dictate whether or not the platform owner has to use their freedom of speech and freedom of association to assist someone else in making their own speech. What an absurd notion. If there is a critical mass of free speech absolutists, then their chosen platform will be a roaring success. I mean 4chan exists, but of course we see how popular that platform is. Probably because normal people don’t want that kind of garbage in their face every day.
Click to expand...

The problem is having rules that disproportionately censor another side of politics. I see the left constantly equating anything they disagree with as "hate speech", bullying, harassment, naziism, transphobic. It's pretty clear because it has played out exactly like this: if you put the rules in place for things like this to be censored, one side will eventually make the attempt to label the things they disagree with as those things. And then those things get censored.

That's just wrong, and it shows a lack of confidence in one's political opinion. If your ideas can't win unless you suppress the expression of the other side, maybe your ideas suck. And if people really think that free and open discourse is going to elect Trump again, they need to a) take a look at their ideas and b) run better candidates. It really is that simple.

Edit: I'll add this as well, and it's not necessarily directed at you, but I see a massive entitlement complex from the democratic party. They had a popular candidate in Bernie Sanders who by all metrics would have beaten Trump in 2016. But they pulled every dirty trick in the book to shoehorn the elite's preferred candidate in Hilary Clinton. Trump won because of that, but they still won't take responsibility for it.

Even now, the party is still rigged so that only their preferred establishment candidates can get the nomination, and because it's not working very well they now need to trample over free speech (such as getting the Hunter Biden laptop story removed from Twitter) because they just don't want to learn their lesson.

Why should they be able to muzzle us in order to make their political strategy work? Get better ideas and better candidates and Trump won't win.
 
Last edited:
teh_hunterer said:
I'm glad it's that simple for you. For the rest of us though, a platform as big and relevant as Twitter is a kind of town square, quite different from a forum for Apple enthusiasts. Being censored for political views on Twitter where a) basically everyone is, and b) there was a good faith expectation that the rules were politically neutral, is different.

Just because a company can write something into its terms of service and act according to those rules, doesn't mean the rules themselves are beyond scrutiny. Although this position of "well it's within their rights to do so" is often used when one wants to avoid the morality debate.

Censoring mean words on the internet might mean less mean words, temporarily at least. But you can't ignore the technical issue, which is that if you determine that "hate speech" is grounds for censorship, you need people to be deciding what hate speech is and who gets censored for it and when. Are you good enough to decide for the rest of us what we get to think and say? I'm not, and I don't think you are either.
Click to expand...
teh_hunterer said:
I'm glad it's that simple for you. For the rest of us though, a platform as big and relevant as Twitter is a kind of town square, quite different from a forum for Apple enthusiasts. Being censored for political views on Twitter where a) basically everyone is, and b) there was a good faith expectation that the rules were politically neutral, is different.

Just because a company can write something into its terms of service and act according to those rules, doesn't mean the rules themselves are beyond scrutiny. Although this position of "well it's within their rights to do so" is often used when one wants to avoid the morality debate.

Censoring mean words on the internet might mean less mean words, temporarily at least. But you can't ignore the technical issue, which is that if you determine that "hate speech" is grounds for censorship, you need people to be deciding what hate speech is and who gets censored for it and when. Are you good enough to decide for the rest of us what we get to think and say? I'm not, and I don't think you are either.
Click to expand...


I'm glad it's that simple for you. For the rest of us though, a platform as big and relevant as Twitter is a kind of town square, quite different from a forum for Apple enthusiasts. Being censored for political views on Twitter where a) basically everyone is, and b) there was a good faith expectation that the rules were politically neutral, is different.
teh_hunterer said:
Just because a company can write something into its terms of service and act according to those rules, doesn't mean the rules themselves are beyond scrutiny. Although this position of "well it's within their rights to do so" is often used when one wants to avoid the morality debate.

Censoring mean words on the internet might mean less mean words, temporarily at least. But you can't ignore the technical issue, which is that if you determine that "hate speech" is grounds for censorship, you need people to be deciding what hate speech is and who gets censored for it and when. Are you good enough to decide for the rest of us what we get to think and say? I'm not, and I don't think you are either.
Click to expand...

Again with this argument.

Freedom not to have undue pressure from the government does that mean you have the right to an audience.

You do NOT have the right of reaching a large number of people. What your sentiment wants is to force social media to give your an audience. Before social media, People were able to reach large numbers. But they put in the WORK to get that done. And these are people who actually changed the world as we know it.

What you and the other lazy arses want is to have others do the work for you.

Freedom of speech. Not freedom of reach.
 
teh_hunterer said:
Glad it's that simple for you. As I outlined in my previous post, the morality of it is far more complicated than that.



The problem is having rules that disproportionately censor another side of politics. I see the left constantly equating anything they disagree with as "hate speech", bullying, harassment, naziism, transphobic. It's pretty clear because it has played out exactly like this: if you put the rules in place for things like this to be censored, one side will eventually make the attempt to label the things they disagree with as those things. And then those things get censored.

That's just wrong, and it shows a lack of confidence in one's political opinion. If your ideas can't win unless you suppress the expression of the other side, maybe your ideas suck. And if people really think that free and open discourse is going to elect Trump again, they need to a) take a look at their ideas and b) run better candidates. It really is that simple.

Edit: I'll add this as well, and it's not necessarily directed at you, but I see a massive entitlement complex from the democratic party. They had a popular candidate in Bernie Sanders who by all metrics would have beaten Trump in 2016. But they pulled every dirty trick in the book to shoehorn the elite's preferred candidate in Hilary Clinton. Trump won because of that, but they still won't take responsibility for it.

Even now, the party is still rigged so that only their preferred establishment candidates can get the nomination, and because it's not working very well they now need to trample over free speech (such as getting the Hunter Biden laptop story removed from Twitter) because they just don't want to learn their lesson.

Why should they be able to muzzle us in order to make their political strategy work? Get better ideas and better candidates and Trump won't win.
Click to expand...
The Democrats did get a better candidate and did win, in case you forgot that.
 
2010mini said:
I'm glad it's that simple for you. For the rest of us though, a platform as big and relevant as Twitter is a kind of town square, quite different from a forum for Apple enthusiasts. Being censored for political views on Twitter where a) basically everyone is, and b) there was a good faith expectation that the rules were politically neutral, is different.


Again with this argument.

Freedom not to have undue pressure from the government does that mean you have the right to an audience.

You do NOT have the right of reaching a large number of people. What your sentiment wants is to force social media to give your an audience. Before social media, People were able to reach large numbers. But they put in the WORK to get that done. And these are people who actually changed the world as we know it.

What you and the other lazy arses want is to have others do the work for you.

Freedom of speech. Not freedom of reach.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you know MLK just hopped on TikTok and FB Live to give his “I have a Dream” speech? If those platforms could’ve censored him, the world would be quite different today.

/s
 
SnappleRumors said:
I haven’t and we’ve all been paying dearly for it since.
Click to expand...
Yeah we’d totally be better off if the guy literally admitting to wanting to shred the Constitution were in office…

thehill.com

Trump calls for ‘termination’ of election rules in Constitution to overturn 2020 election

Former President Trump called for the termination of the Constitution’s rules regarding elections to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election following the release of more detailed in…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mainsail
vipergts2207 said:
Yeah we’d totally be better off if the guy literally admitting to wanting to shred the Constitution were in office…

thehill.com

Trump calls for ‘termination’ of election rules in Constitution to overturn 2020 election

Former President Trump called for the termination of the Constitution’s rules regarding elections to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election following the release of more detailed in…
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...

No dispute to Biden having won. The country has been paying the price for the Democrats putting that horror show in the White House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loungefly2022
Cook needs to come clean on his support of the CCP and the oppression of the Chinese people. New coming out Apple suppressed Air Drop in china to prevent communication getting out on protests.

If these are Apple "values" -- will have to move on. Cook even praised Communist China and their values. Not a good look.
 
SnappleRumors said:
Don’t know if we agree. I merely answered questions. You were the one trying to be provocative. Review our dialogue.
Click to expand...
I’ve got better things to do than reread a conversation with someone choosing to be vague rather than simply saying what their thoughts are. If you think censorship on Twitter is ok, then we agree. If not then say so and say what you mean. Or don’t, I don’t really care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back