10 ms·
Apple is removing Alex Jones and InfoWars’ podcasts from iTunes
- unixhero 8y agoA slippery slope, but yeah, that rubbish had to go.
- onecooldev24 8y agoThe only thing rubbish here is blatant disregard for freedom of speech (Didn't really expect anything different from the fools here). There are platforms that are monopoly and they control free speech at this point.
- kenjinp 8y agoFire in a crowded theatre?
- onecooldev24 8y agoFloating ideas is not "Fire in a crowded theatre"!
- enraged_camel 8y agoSaying Sandy Hook didn’t happen and that the parents were actors is not “floating ideas”.
- onecooldev24 8y agoOhh well then basically you are saying no one should be allowed to make public statements that could cause a revolution. Why cant you feel your own stupidity!
- sctb 8y agoWe've already asked you not to personally attack other users, so we've banned the account.
- crooked-v 8y agoSlandering and encouraging harassment against the families of mass murder victims is not "floating ideas".
- dagenix 8y agoFreedom of speech only applies to the government. It doesn't require any private actor to tolerate crazy, hate filled nonsense on their platforms. It's his right to continue to spew his garbage, he just has to do it elsewhere.
- jiojfdsal3 8y agoThe definition of "freedom of speech" is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" (Oxford Dictionary). It does not say anything about the 1st Amendment.
- briandear 8y agoAlex Jones still has the freedom to say whatever he wants. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be heard or distributed.
- onecooldev24 8y agoDo you understand the meaning of those words "censorship or restraint""
- matthewmacleod 8y ago“Freedom of speech” does not include the right to demand that third parties are partners in your activities. Infowars is and should remain free to publish content independently of these providers, which they can easily do.
- onecooldev24 8y agoWe are living in a state of monopoly and EU laws agree with that. How can you then throw away freedom of speech! Just cause the goons on this forum are pissed, doesn't mean that guy should be banned. 48% of population voted for trump!
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> We are living in a state of monopoly In what sense? Apple has a minority of the market. And podcasts are decentralised. > 48% of population voted for trump My friends who voted for Trump would find it insulting for anyone to assume they are therefore InfoWars nutters.
- matthewmacleod 8y agoApple does not have a monopoly on podcast distribution. Infowars is not being kicked off because “Trump”.
- cm2187 8y agoBut where does "partner" start? Is your cloud provider a partner to what you put online? Is Comcast partner to what you do online with your internet connection? Is your electricity company partner to what you do with your energy?
- undseg 8y agoThis is such an under-discussed argument. Of course a private entity can disregard morality for the good of the public in their decisions (they're after profits), but what happens when that private entity becomes the town square? Or when it has monopoly over something that has become a basic utility for everyone? At this time I'm starting to cringe at opinions defending these actions with "it's a private entity".
- ryaneager 8y agoFreedom of speech only applies to the government. Apple as a private company is free to censor whatever they want. Not saying that they necessarily should but it is well within their rights.
- cjslep 8y agoThe principle of free speech has to do with the systematic extermination of a widespread viewpoint (ex:Tienamen Square in China). This is one company/guy getting booted off a private platform. He is still able to go to other platforms or apply for public permits to express his viewpoint.
- hs86 8y agohttps://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ This xkcd seems to fit here.
- vixen99 8y agoAnd as on HN, 'rubbish' (or anything we really would prefer not to see even if someone else would) is defined by users' actions.
- dmix 8y agoWhich is far preferable than Apple (FB, Youtube) deciding it for us.
- skc 8y agoTheir platform, their rules. Good on Apple I say.
- ch4ck 8y agoTheir bakery, their rules.
- cm2012 8y ago"Hate mongering Conspiracy theorist" is not a protected class.
- jiojfdsal3 8y agoNor is LGBT
- matthewmacleod 8y agoThat depends where you live.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Nor is LGBT SCOTUS has ruled discriminating against a gay man to be akin to discriminating against him for his sex. Sex is undoubtedly a protected class. The argument is, roughly, that the person would face no prejudice if they were a woman marrying a man. But because they are a man marrying one, the treatment changes. It’s a bit convoluted, but it makes sense.
- ch4ck 8y agoOh really? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jeong https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Jeong
- mrschwabe 8y agoExactly, now let's make open decentralized app distribution platforms that cannot be censored like this.
- i_am_nomad 8y agoI've never listened to it, and in fact I have no idea who that guy is or what he talks about, except that he's supposedly a conspiracy theorist. For those of you who have, what made his show so objectionable (to Apple, anyway)?
- ch4ck 8y agoHe supports POTUS.
- threeseed 8y agoSo does Fox News and their content is available everywhere.
- okket 8y agoFox News is problematic, may be even extreme (Sean Hannity et al) but I would not put them in the same league as InfoWars. At least not as long as Shepard Smith gets airtime there. See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0
- briandear 8y agoIf we are to complain about Hannity, then we have to include Maddow. Assuming we are trying to be intellectually consistent. She’s just as “extreme” but from the other side.
- okket 8y agoClassic false equivalence. You are right that Maddow is similar in style, but on a fact-to-fact based comparison, Hannity is some orders of magnitude more extreme.
- phs318u 8y agoHe supports denial of reality, and he's reaching (part of) his audience on Apple's platform. They are within their rights to elect to remove him if he violates their terms of service. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other podcasts that support POTUS that haven't been removed.
- willio58 8y agoI think Apple is completely in the right here. They are enforcing a policy and if people don’t like that they don’t have to find podcasts through iTunes. Luckily podcasts are designed to be decentralized, so even if Apple gets too trigger-happy with banning certain podcasts, that won’t affect anyone’s ability to still subscribe to those podcasts.
- singularity2001 8y agoI think Apple is completely in the wrong here. They are unnecessarily censoring. They should not censor, they must not censor. If this crook called Alex engaged in nonsense and hate-speech it should be the state's obligation to sue him.
- adwi 8y agoApple never pretended to have a curatorially-neutral stance in their ecosystem [0], and personally I’d prefer a private company burying content VS government criminalizing it any day of the week. [0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#objectionable-content https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#obj...
- singularity2001 8y agoWow, being pro censorship is mainstream now?
- pteredactyl 8y agoI know, right?! ( Not sarcastic )
- dmix 8y agoSadly there's a very popular group of people pushing for censorship in their partisan political battles online.
- naaaaak 8y ago> "Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users" Is rap going away from iTunes, too? Is Apple going to remove the “Punch Trump” apps? Is Apple going to ban the New York Times from News for their new outspoken racist board member? Tech-Left censorship is at fascist fantasy levels.
- dagenix 8y agoAs a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.
- jiojfdsal3 8y agoSo you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?
- dagenix 8y agoI support the term "freedom of speech" as it refers to the Constitution being used correctly.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct? Not necessarily. Apple is a non-monopoly making a judgement about their corner of a decentralised protocol. That’s quite different from an ISP, where many Americans have little or no choice. Particularly when said ISPs have often received lawful monopolies and government subsidies. Context matters. Finally, my ISP doesn’t have terms of use in respect of content; Apple does.
- jiojfdsal3 8y agoIn my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content? You cherry-picked one point. Taken together, Apple’s lack of monopoly status, terms of use and lack of an explicit history of subsidies and markets exclusively granted by fiat make the First Amendment less applicable to it than e.g. Verizon. In the cases where customers dinged ISPs for throttling, it came down to the ISPs having marketed “Internet access,” not some convoluted expansion of the First Amendment to private actors. I believe in encouraging a public forum for the exchange of ideas. But I also believe in private citizens’—including corporations’—rights to decide with what they’re associated. In this particular case, we have someone who serially relays emotionally-charged and unambiguously-false information to his viewers. Not going to defend him unless a government tries to shut him down.
- sparkling 8y agoI agree with most of the comments here. Private entities such as Apple should be free to work with whomever they want on their platforms. However, i feel if this was some left-leaning podcast, the same people supporting this removal would be outraged.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- flukus 8y agoUnfortunately the concept of a principled stance seems to be a casualty of the current political polarization. It will come back to bite everyone on the left/progressive side of politics too because companies want to avoid being linked to any sort of controversy no matter what the position is and the left/progressives have lost any advantage in tech saviness. A recent (local to Australia example) was this woman fired over pro-abortion tweets (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/cricket-australia-sacks-staffer-over-abortion-tweets/10051972 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/cricket-australia-sack...). The same people cheering about someone getting fired for anti-ssm tweets were up in arms about this. That said I also agree that apple should be able to do business (or not) with however they like, the problem is the level of control we gave them in the first place. Everyone publishing and subscribing to iTunes is responsible for this. Site's like InfoWars especially should have seen this coming.
- yuvalr1 8y agoAlthough I'm happy seeing this kind of content removed, I'm really afraid of a future where private corporations have such a definitive influence of free speech. They set their own rules, and it's dangerous.
- simoalx 8y agoAlex Jones has the complete and total benefits of free speech - he can continue saying whatever he wants without any repercussions from the government. Apple making a decision like this isn't influencing free speech in the slightest.
- undseg 8y agoFree speech is not a concept that only exists in your constitution. It's a mistake to bring up the First Amendment in these cases just as much as it is to think that Free Speech only refers to the First Amendment or repercussion from the Govt.
- neya 8y agoProbably be down-voted for this, but I find it funny, lots of people here support Apple. No matter how trash the podcast author was, I'd imagine there'd be an outrage if this were a move by Google. I'm not a fan of either, but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the corporate in question.
- tomhoward 8y ago> I'd imagine there'd be an outrage if this were a move by Google. > but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the corporate in question. You're interested to see the polarized reactions you've imagined :) Apple gets plenty of criticism on HN, just for different things to what Google gets criticism for. There's no reason to believe Google would be heavily criticised on HN if they took the same action Apple is taking here. People are sophisticated enough to consider context in their reactions to things.
- wuliwong 8y agoYouTube removed his stuff, but I guess it is out of scope for this comment section?
- peteretep 8y agoGood for Apple. It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices, though.
- briandear 8y agoWhat should elected representatives do? You as a citizen have the right to not consume Alex Jones content. Apple has a right to ban it. The government does not have the right to be involved at all unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment. I definitely don’t want my elected representatives involved in idea curation. That’s far more terrifying. Go be a journalist in Turkey to see what is truly terrifying when elected representatives get involved.
- peteretep 8y ago> unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment An amendment that very few other rich, developed countries have, and yet Americans appear to cling on to like it's the only thing stopping the damn wheels coming off. Isn't 1A why y'all have Citizens United?
- pteredactyl 8y agoMaybe it is the only thing keeping the wheels on. Principles are timeless. Like the Golden rule.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices I find the idea of the government restricting speech more terrifying. That's why we have the First Amendment. I will fight for Alex Jones' right to spew his garbage. But I'll also defend Apple's right, and in my eyes obligation, to not actively promote him.
- vixen99 8y agoBe nice to actually see what garbage is involved here so that I can determine for myself if I agree with you. Not possible though because it appears that Facebook did not specifically state which posts or videos violated their policies or in what way.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- randomname2 8y agoInterestingly this only happened after pressure from CNN, after they successfully got Facebook and Youtube to punish Infowars [1] [1] https://www.salon.com/amp/fox-news-tucker-carlson-runs-to-alex-jones-defense-cnn-is-trying-to-squelch-his-point-of-view https://www.salon.com/amp/fox-news-tucker-carlson-runs-to-al...
- orionblastar 8y agoHere is a thread on Reddit that explains it more: https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/94xu2n/apple_is_removing_alex_jones_and_infowars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/94xu2n/apple_is... He's basically lying to sell products when he lied about Sandy Hook being fake the victim's families got doxed by his crazed fans. He also claimed the government was putting chemicals in the water that turns frogs gay, implying that the same chemicals turn people gay, etc. This is really hurting people and it is getting out of control. Apple cannot associate with this podcast for fear that they will be sued for listing it on their podcast lists. For people not in the USA, Alex Jones is a chicken little conspiracy theorist claiming that the sky is falling but it is not. He claims we live on a prison planet that Nazi alien lizards that shapeshift control. Quite a bit crazy like him is also David Icke and others.
- wuliwong 8y ago>it is getting out of control Who is chicken little now?
- hnisgroupthink 8y agoHe's a comedian. Yes, he is bill hicks. Almost 100% sure, and I spent a long time researching it. It's a performance art, like the colbert show but he doesn't wink at the camera the whole time.
- justsomedude43 8y agoAll the people here supporting Apple's decision with an argument "it's a private company, their rules" are the same people moaning when Apple, Google, Facebook or others do the same thing that affects them.
- imran3740 8y agoRelevant article from the socialist Current Affairs magazine: https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-leftist-once-a-corporation-tramples-on-them https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-leftist-o...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wuliwong 8y agoYou can definitely dislike Apple's decision to ban Alex Jones and not clamor for regulation.
- happytoexplain 8y agoThis seems like a pretty baseless assertion, though I'm sure it feels good to believe. However, if there was something more substantial that made you say it, I wish you'd elaborate.
- karpodiem 8y agoHe should just put a .torrent up of the video after the show, have his followers upload it to YouTube, and have a form they can report the URL back so he can embed the video. He won't get ad revenue, but he'll still get to his message out.
- freeall 8y agoI think Alex Jones is way more about the ad revenue than his message.
- internet_user 8y agoNext: Hacker News is blacklisted in Safari.
- robd003 8y agoI wish Silicon Valley believed in free speech instead of being jackbooted thugs. Let the individual decide if they want to consume media or not. I'm getting sick and tired of the outrage mobs trying to censor everything they personally find objectionable.