3 ms·
Because whatever they do, Apple's actions or inactions will have an effect on people in the real world. In the case of videos which might get people beaten or
by jlokier 6y ago
Because whatever they do, Apple's actions or inactions will have an effect on people in the real world.
In the case of videos which might get people beaten or killed or other things, you can argue that Apple shouldn't act to take those down due to anti-censorship principles, or you can argue that Apple should act due to anti-beating-and-killing-or-other principles.
What you can't correctly argue is that Apple should avoid getting involved.
It's literally impossible for them to not be involved. Whatever they do or don't do has the effect of supporting one outcome or the other.
- ffpip 6y ago> What you can't correctly argue is that Apple should avoid getting involved. It is not possible for Apple to start moderating all user generated content in all apps. They shouldn't do it. I gave another example below- Imagine if Chrome decides to stop connecting to a site because the Govt asks Google to do it. They can do it. But they shouldn't
- jlokier 6y agoSure, but your argument is for "shouldn't act". It's not the same as argument for "avoid getting involved". They can't choose not be involved, there's literally no way to avoid being involved once you're providing facilities. The act of producing software which "does not moderate user generated content" is an action demonstrating a particular set of values. It's not neutral.