5 ms·

> That's an easy stance to take No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not

by urda 11y ago

> That's an easy stance to take No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. > I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech" Can we drop the hyperbole and focus on the discussion please?

themartorana 11y ago
"...they are not required to grant you access." They're not granting me access, they're restricting my access to content they don't own. They have no real right to deny me access.
- coderdude 11y ago
  They have no right to deny you access to their platform or to deny content from being distributed through their platform. Something about that sounds incorrect.
- urda 11y ago
  What you described is not a right, and they are allowed to control what is or is not in their store. Whether you like it or not.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Well, a black man not being a slave wasn't his right in 1840 Georgia either. Staying in the same hotel as whites wasn't his right in 1950. It's always better to concentrate at what we think SHOULD be the right or what it's we consider ethical, than merely restating what happens to be the law, which can very easily be BS. And "whether we like it or not" plays a huge role in having laws changed -- that's where we should be starting from, not waving it away as if we're some kind of non-citizen slaves where things are just forced upon us.
coldtea 11y ago
>No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. It doesn't matter if you're forced or not. In a world where the majority chooses to use them (for other reasons, e.g. convenience, features, price, etc), the company controlling what's broadcast on them is censorship, and has the same effects as censoring the publishing of a book had in 1700. If the majority had chosen those platforms with the EXPLICIT goal of avoiding your content that would be another thing.

by urda 11y ago

themartorana 11y ago

"...they are not required to grant you access." They're not granting me access, they're restricting my access to content they don't own. They have no real right to deny me access.

coderdude 11y ago
They have no right to deny you access to their platform or to deny content from being distributed through their platform. Something about that sounds incorrect.
urda 11y ago
What you described is not a right, and they are allowed to control what is or is not in their store. Whether you like it or not.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Well, a black man not being a slave wasn't his right in 1840 Georgia either. Staying in the same hotel as whites wasn't his right in 1950. It's always better to concentrate at what we think SHOULD be the right or what it's we consider ethical, than merely restating what happens to be the law, which can very easily be BS. And "whether we like it or not" plays a huge role in having laws changed -- that's where we should be starting from, not waving it away as if we're some kind of non-citizen slaves where things are just forced upon us.

coldtea 11y ago

>No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access. It doesn't matter if you're forced or not. In a world where the majority chooses to use them (for other reasons, e.g. convenience, features, price, etc), the company controlling what's broadcast on them is censorship, and has the same effects as censoring the publishing of a book had in 1700. If the majority had chosen those platforms with the EXPLICIT goal of avoiding your content that would be another thing.