4 ms·

The precedent has already been set (e.g. Infowars) that hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app.

by amanzi 8y ago

el_dev_hell 8y ago
> hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app What's the context behind this claim?
- 51lver 8y ago
  It seems to me that US domestic interest in excluding foreign objectionable content mean that the DMCA safeharbor provision's days are numbered.
  - duskwuff 8y ago
    I don't see how that follows. OCILLA is exclusively concerned with copyright, not other content issues.
- bduerst 8y ago
  There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content platforms for violating platform policies. i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses flat earth conspiracies.
  - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
    The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no? How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?
    - Zecar 8y ago
      Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.
  - amanzi 8y ago
    Not sure how you see a connection between flat-earthers and the Saudis' treatment of women? It's fine for people to believe the world is flat - it doesn't hurt anyone.
    - judge2020 8y ago
      This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied". I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".
- buboard 8y ago
  that corporates have decided to not uphold moral relativism.
atomical 8y ago
This is the context. https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape/public/images/methode/2018/04/09/479f1b98-3bcc-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1280x720_173331.jpg?itok=N39zE_RP https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlqEQYpVsAATI4o.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlqEQYpVsAATI4o.jpg https://www.eyeofriyadh.com/news_images/132503c929611.jpg https://www.eyeofriyadh.com/news_images/132503c929611.jpg These guys sold out the people of Saudi Arabia.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ng12 8y ago
Agreed. Plausible deniability is maintained but the facts are the same. We, as a society, need to move away from the silly idea that companies should be moral judicators.
- thatoneyouthrow 8y ago
  Tim Cook is leading the charge on that one. A gay man that supports a regime that executes homosexuals. It sounds like fake news and yet it's true.
- toofy 8y ago
  If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations, why wouldn’t we expect them to be moral leaders? From my perspective it would seem they are precisely the kind of people we want pushing for basic human rights.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations FAANG have more money than entire nations' GDP or outstanding debt. Apple with its 250B cash reserve could buy over half of Greece's outstanding debt.

The precedent has already been set (e.g. Infowars) that hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app.

by amanzi 8y ago

The precedent has already been set (e.g. Infowars) that hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app.

el_dev_hell 8y ago

> hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app What's the context behind this claim?

51lver 8y ago
It seems to me that US domestic interest in excluding foreign objectionable content mean that the DMCA safeharbor provision's days are numbered.
- duskwuff 8y ago
  I don't see how that follows. OCILLA is exclusively concerned with copyright, not other content issues.
bduerst 8y ago
There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content platforms for violating platform policies. i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses flat earth conspiracies.
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago
  The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no? How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?
  - Zecar 8y ago
    Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.
- amanzi 8y ago
  Not sure how you see a connection between flat-earthers and the Saudis' treatment of women? It's fine for people to believe the world is flat - it doesn't hurt anyone.
  - judge2020 8y ago
    This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied". I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".
buboard 8y ago
that corporates have decided to not uphold moral relativism.

atomical 8y ago

This is the context. https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape/public/images/methode/2018/04/09/479f1b98-3bcc-11e8-b6d9-57447a4b43e5_1280x720_173331.jpg?itok=N39zE_RP https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlqEQYpVsAATI4o.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlqEQYpVsAATI4o.jpg https://www.eyeofriyadh.com/news_images/132503c929611.jpg https://www.eyeofriyadh.com/news_images/132503c929611.jpg These guys sold out the people of Saudi Arabia.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ng12 8y ago

Agreed. Plausible deniability is maintained but the facts are the same. We, as a society, need to move away from the silly idea that companies should be moral judicators.

thatoneyouthrow 8y ago
Tim Cook is leading the charge on that one. A gay man that supports a regime that executes homosexuals. It sounds like fake news and yet it's true.
toofy 8y ago
If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations, why wouldn’t we expect them to be moral leaders? From my perspective it would seem they are precisely the kind of people we want pushing for basic human rights.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations FAANG have more money than entire nations' GDP or outstanding debt. Apple with its 250B cash reserve could buy over half of Greece's outstanding debt.