3 ms·

They are a private enterprise and can do what they want, but the optics aren't great. For the sake of PR they should try and maintain at least the appearance of

by grej 10y ago

They are a private enterprise and can do what they want, but the optics aren't great. For the sake of PR they should try and maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased. Perhaps develop a single policy for politically oriented apps, and stick to it in all cases. PS - Also noticed this was flagged & removed, then restored. Very glad to see it was restored as this is a very relevant thing to be talking about in the current political climate.

dawnerd 10y ago
Honestly don't think they should allow apps like hide Hillary or punch trump. They're low value and only promote hate towards the person.
- grej 10y ago
  Yeah, I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, it reflects the current climate and allowing both would be the more "free speechy" way to go. But on the other, I think apps that target an individual person - any individual not just a political leader - I think are exactly as you said - really low value and promoting hate. Either way they go, they should clearly stick to one policy for both sides.
- iLoch 10y ago
  Not sure I'd put the two apps in the same category other than the fact that they're both political. I haven't played them, but one is appears to be raising awareness about very controversial (and possibly corrupt) behaviour, the other is inciting violence against a presidential candidate. If Apple wants to say "no politics allowed" that's fine by me, they can do what they want. But I think they should follow through with that, and not take sides. At the same time, they should be free to operate however they please within the confines of the law. So to me the only thing wrong with what they're doing is that it just looks bad.
- wyager 10y ago
  How does "Hide it Hillary" promote hate? It's satirizing something she actually did in real life. "Punch Trump", on the other hand, has violence in it, but even that is not sufficient to claim that it promotes violence.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    As pointless as they may seem, the web has a long history of games allowing users to pretend to punch various celebrities, and the "punch famous person X" genre probably predates that. There have also been TV shows like Celebrity Deathmatch, and IIRC one popular show for teens/tweens had its main character use her computer to put the face of another character into a boxing simulation. I think the cat is out of the bag on the punch X genre for now, but society's tastes can still change over time.
    - nitrogen 10y ago
      Very curious why some disagree with a factual description of the history of a particular genre of game..
- the8472 10y ago
  Why should they police what users can do with their devices at all? Providing strong guidance for the purpose of security seems reasonable considering that not everyone is computer-literate. Anything else, that is policing content, seems self-serving (upholding brand image or whatever), dictatorial (imposing moral values, such as nudity == evil) and user-hostile.
  - dawnerd 10y ago
    Oh completely agree. But since they've built this walled garden of apps it just makes sense for them to be consistent.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
DasIch 10y ago
Why should they appear to be unbiased?
the8472 10y ago
> They are a private enterprise and can do what they want I'm somewhat skeptical of this argument. For the lower protocol layers we indeed do have common carrier status/net neutrality rules. The upper layers ostensibly see competition. But it is competition with strong customer-lockin. Consider people for which a smartphone is a big investment. If they buy an iPhone then they're now part of apple's fiefdom and all their regulations and imposition of moral values.
kartan 10y ago
> They are a private enterprise and can do what they want No. Private enterprises have to obey the rule of law. If they don't accept an app, for example, because its developer is Muslim it will be discrimination. They can, however, ban apps with a green background just because. Another different thing is that as Apple and Google have such a big impact on what people can use or not some extra checks can be in place. They are not a monopoly but a oligopoly.
nitrogen 10y ago
The "private companies can do what they want" / caveat emptor argument has to stop working at some point in a company's size and pervasiveness. There are loads of examples of things that private companies are not allowed to do. Some extreme examples for an existence proof: sell DIY pet euthanasia kits, sell candy with bits of embedded glass, bury leaky canisters of toxic waste in the local water table... Some less extreme examples to help move closer to the line of allowed/disallowed behavior: refuse ER treatment based on ability to pay, refuse to provide phone service based on phone number dialed, refuse to seat a patron based on skin color, refuse to bake a wedding cake based on religion or sexual orientation. So, having established the existence of restraints on corporate bevavior, and the diversity and reasonableness of many of those constraints, where would the line be drawn for companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google that have an oligopoly on most online communication and mobile software distribution?

by grej 10y ago

dawnerd 10y ago

Honestly don't think they should allow apps like hide Hillary or punch trump. They're low value and only promote hate towards the person.

grej 10y ago
Yeah, I'm of two minds on it. On the one hand, it reflects the current climate and allowing both would be the more "free speechy" way to go. But on the other, I think apps that target an individual person - any individual not just a political leader - I think are exactly as you said - really low value and promoting hate. Either way they go, they should clearly stick to one policy for both sides.
iLoch 10y ago
Not sure I'd put the two apps in the same category other than the fact that they're both political. I haven't played them, but one is appears to be raising awareness about very controversial (and possibly corrupt) behaviour, the other is inciting violence against a presidential candidate. If Apple wants to say "no politics allowed" that's fine by me, they can do what they want. But I think they should follow through with that, and not take sides. At the same time, they should be free to operate however they please within the confines of the law. So to me the only thing wrong with what they're doing is that it just looks bad.
wyager 10y ago
How does "Hide it Hillary" promote hate? It's satirizing something she actually did in real life. "Punch Trump", on the other hand, has violence in it, but even that is not sufficient to claim that it promotes violence.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  As pointless as they may seem, the web has a long history of games allowing users to pretend to punch various celebrities, and the "punch famous person X" genre probably predates that. There have also been TV shows like Celebrity Deathmatch, and IIRC one popular show for teens/tweens had its main character use her computer to put the face of another character into a boxing simulation. I think the cat is out of the bag on the punch X genre for now, but society's tastes can still change over time.
  - nitrogen 10y ago
    Very curious why some disagree with a factual description of the history of a particular genre of game..
the8472 10y ago
Why should they police what users can do with their devices at all? Providing strong guidance for the purpose of security seems reasonable considering that not everyone is computer-literate. Anything else, that is policing content, seems self-serving (upholding brand image or whatever), dictatorial (imposing moral values, such as nudity == evil) and user-hostile.
- dawnerd 10y ago
  Oh completely agree. But since they've built this walled garden of apps it just makes sense for them to be consistent.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

DasIch 10y ago

Why should they appear to be unbiased?

the8472 10y ago

> They are a private enterprise and can do what they want I'm somewhat skeptical of this argument. For the lower protocol layers we indeed do have common carrier status/net neutrality rules. The upper layers ostensibly see competition. But it is competition with strong customer-lockin. Consider people for which a smartphone is a big investment. If they buy an iPhone then they're now part of apple's fiefdom and all their regulations and imposition of moral values.

kartan 10y ago

> They are a private enterprise and can do what they want No. Private enterprises have to obey the rule of law. If they don't accept an app, for example, because its developer is Muslim it will be discrimination. They can, however, ban apps with a green background just because. Another different thing is that as Apple and Google have such a big impact on what people can use or not some extra checks can be in place. They are not a monopoly but a oligopoly.

nitrogen 10y ago

The "private companies can do what they want" / caveat emptor argument has to stop working at some point in a company's size and pervasiveness. There are loads of examples of things that private companies are not allowed to do. Some extreme examples for an existence proof: sell DIY pet euthanasia kits, sell candy with bits of embedded glass, bury leaky canisters of toxic waste in the local water table... Some less extreme examples to help move closer to the line of allowed/disallowed behavior: refuse ER treatment based on ability to pay, refuse to provide phone service based on phone number dialed, refuse to seat a patron based on skin color, refuse to bake a wedding cake based on religion or sexual orientation. So, having established the existence of restraints on corporate bevavior, and the diversity and reasonableness of many of those constraints, where would the line be drawn for companies like Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Google that have an oligopoly on most online communication and mobile software distribution?