3 ms·

That's a decent analogy and I'm surprised you're getting voted down.

benologist 7y ago
It’s a lot closer to leaving a Yelp review that accurately described their behavior a few days after you witnessed them doing something stupid that ruined your experience.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  Only if you admit in the review that you took no action whatsoever to allow them to fix whatever the issue was.
  - benologist 7y ago
    If you research that time period you will find many arbitrary rejections were being made that could not be resolved by the developer and may even have been nonsensical. https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-1... https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-store-rejections/ https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-stor... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3dwq8/apples-long-history-of-rejecting-objectionable-content-from-the-app-store https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3dwq8/apples-long-histor...
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      Read your own articles. None of the decisions were overturned as a result of a report to the media. All of them were resolved independently between Apple and the developer.
      - benologist 7y ago
        Google Voice and the NiN album were both reinstated without change after succumbing to public pressure. Google actually went to the FTC where Apple claimed they didn't reject their app! The drone strike notification app in the Vice article ended up being approved in 2017(!!) after five years of trying to publish it, then it got immediately removed lol. https://www.macworld.com/article/1140476/accessapproved.html https://www.macworld.com/article/1140476/accessapproved.html https://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/2318247/official-google-voice-app-approved-for-ios https://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/2318247/official-g... https://mashable.com/2017/03/28/apple-app-store-metadata-drones/ https://mashable.com/2017/03/28/apple-app-store-metadata-dro... Also from the CNET article: a political countdown timer, a podcasting app and South Park streaming episodes app were all never approved.
        dkonofalski 7y ago
        None of those articles cite the reason for the change as being media backlash, though. If that was the case, then why would Apple wait days in some cases, weeks in others, and years (according to you) for still others. It's always resolved through either a change by the developer or a change in the review policy at Apple. Again, the statement is about the relationship between the developer and Apple. If anything, Apple will be less likely to cave or change a decision just because of media pressure. Otherwise, the countdown timer, podcast app, and South Park would have just been approved after the media got wind of it. You're literally arguing against yourself with that point.
anoncake 7y ago
Because punishing is how you restrict free speech. If your "free" speech has this kind of consequences, it isn't free.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  "Free" speech only applies to governments limiting the free expression of their citizens. Private companies have no obligation to continue doing business with someone for any reason, especially when that individual is acting in bad faith by disparaging their business relationship.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    No. Free speech (and other rights) isn't about governments but about people. Your rights aren't less violated because the violator has no democratic legitimation, that just makes it worse. The only way in which companies infringing your rights is less relevant is that companies having that ability shouldn't even exist, so making them behave is merely a band-aid.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      That is nonsense. This isn't about limiting speech. It's about maintaining a business relationship. No one, individual or otherwise, has the right to force a business relationship, or any other relationship, between two people, entities, or companies unless both sides are willing to maintain it.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Of course you have a right to use the services companies provide! That's the whole point of allowing them to exist. Your approach just gives power to capitalists they shouldn't have. It's obviously not quite as clear-cut when it comes to relationships between individuals that have rights.
        dkonofalski 7y ago
klyrs 7y ago
> I'm surprised you're getting voted down. I'm not surprised one bit. I generally don't talk about downvoting, but it's pertinent to the topic of free speech and consequences for speaking. There's a common theme in "free speech" advocacy -- folks assert that free speech must not have any consequences. Addressing that misconception with facts about the US legal system and precedent frequently results in downvotes. Which is rather ironic -- downvoting is a consequence that can result in "censorship." But karma comes and goes with the popularity of my opinions; I'm not bothered. https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/

It’s a lot closer to leaving a Yelp review that accurately described their behavior a few days after you witnessed them doing something stupid that ruined your experience.

dkonofalski 7y ago
Only if you admit in the review that you took no action whatsoever to allow them to fix whatever the issue was.
- benologist 7y ago
  If you research that time period you will find many arbitrary rejections were being made that could not be resolved by the developer and may even have been nonsensical. https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-app-rejections-2009-1... https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-store-rejections/ https://www.cnet.com/news/behind-10-eyebrow-raising-app-stor... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3dwq8/apples-long-history-of-rejecting-objectionable-content-from-the-app-store https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a3dwq8/apples-long-histor...
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    Read your own articles. None of the decisions were overturned as a result of a report to the media. All of them were resolved independently between Apple and the developer.
    - benologist 7y ago
      Google Voice and the NiN album were both reinstated without change after succumbing to public pressure. Google actually went to the FTC where Apple claimed they didn't reject their app! The drone strike notification app in the Vice article ended up being approved in 2017(!!) after five years of trying to publish it, then it got immediately removed lol. https://www.macworld.com/article/1140476/accessapproved.html https://www.macworld.com/article/1140476/accessapproved.html https://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/2318247/official-google-voice-app-approved-for-ios https://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/11/16/2318247/official-g... https://mashable.com/2017/03/28/apple-app-store-metadata-drones/ https://mashable.com/2017/03/28/apple-app-store-metadata-dro... Also from the CNET article: a political countdown timer, a podcasting app and South Park streaming episodes app were all never approved.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago
        None of those articles cite the reason for the change as being media backlash, though. If that was the case, then why would Apple wait days in some cases, weeks in others, and years (according to you) for still others. It's always resolved through either a change by the developer or a change in the review policy at Apple. Again, the statement is about the relationship between the developer and Apple. If anything, Apple will be less likely to cave or change a decision just because of media pressure. Otherwise, the countdown timer, podcast app, and South Park would have just been approved after the media got wind of it. You're literally arguing against yourself with that point.

anoncake 7y ago

Because punishing is how you restrict free speech. If your "free" speech has this kind of consequences, it isn't free.

dkonofalski 7y ago
"Free" speech only applies to governments limiting the free expression of their citizens. Private companies have no obligation to continue doing business with someone for any reason, especially when that individual is acting in bad faith by disparaging their business relationship.
- anoncake 7y ago
  No. Free speech (and other rights) isn't about governments but about people. Your rights aren't less violated because the violator has no democratic legitimation, that just makes it worse. The only way in which companies infringing your rights is less relevant is that companies having that ability shouldn't even exist, so making them behave is merely a band-aid.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    That is nonsense. This isn't about limiting speech. It's about maintaining a business relationship. No one, individual or otherwise, has the right to force a business relationship, or any other relationship, between two people, entities, or companies unless both sides are willing to maintain it.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Of course you have a right to use the services companies provide! That's the whole point of allowing them to exist. Your approach just gives power to capitalists they shouldn't have. It's obviously not quite as clear-cut when it comes to relationships between individuals that have rights.
      - dkonofalski 7y ago

klyrs 7y ago

> I'm surprised you're getting voted down. I'm not surprised one bit. I generally don't talk about downvoting, but it's pertinent to the topic of free speech and consequences for speaking. There's a common theme in "free speech" advocacy -- folks assert that free speech must not have any consequences. Addressing that misconception with facts about the US legal system and precedent frequently results in downvotes. Which is rather ironic -- downvoting is a consequence that can result in "censorship." But karma comes and goes with the popularity of my opinions; I'm not bothered. https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/09/10/speech-and-consequences/