4 ms·
Their platform, their rules. Good on Apple I say.
by skc 8y ago
Their 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.
- willio58 8y agoPodcasts are decentralized already. The feed is still there, just not in Apple’s opt-in index any longer.
- mrschwabe 8y agoGood point. I wonder if Apple will/has banned their app too? They did that to Gab. Just goes to show if you are doing anything remotely controversial do not build in Apple's ecosystem and most definitely do not invest in development of software that relies on being distributed in said ecosystem. If they ban a podcast or an app for hatespeech or wrongthink (under their 'definition' or on the basis of a hyped up PR campaign from a well funded political opponent perhaps) they can ban you for anything on a whim.
- threeseed 8y agoGo right ahead. And then watch as nobody uses them. Because nobody other than a fringe minority actually wants free speech in all its deranged, violent, racist, mysgonistic, cruel, abusive forms. The majority of us just want a nice, safe space free from the nasty side of humanity.
- Endy 8y agoSo your theory is that most people want supposedly-benevolent fascism, rather than liberty and freedom?
- threeseed 8y agoThat's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the ground. People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram, Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major criticism whilst still happily removing content.
- Endy 8y agoThat's thanks to walled-gardens, advertising, and a lack of the average user's ability to use adequate replacement services. Quite frankly it's not likely for the average user to learn about DuckDuckGo, MillionShort, or Exalead. We're starting to see some small pushback against Alphabet's YouTube, but there aren't that many places that will ever have a viable alternative. Dailymotion's the closest - but they're not all that close. Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal with Instagram or Facebook. So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of the 1990s.
- jiojfdsal3 8y agoThoughts on net neutrality?
- matt4077 8y agoIt’s something completely different, and invoking the term for unrelated concepts is bound to muddy the waters and doom the fight for actual net neutrality.