5 ms·

Can you elaborate on how that is substantially different from my statement?

zepto 6y ago
It should be obvious, but here are things from your comment that are very different from my or saagarjha’s version: “we still want you to take the blame” Neither I, nor saargarjha nor Apple are saying anything about blame. You are putting words into Apple’s mouth here. “Don't even dare” There is nothing in my, or Apple’s or Sagaarjha’s comment that has this connotation. You are adding in the idea that Apple wants developers to be afraid. “merely following Apple’s guidelines” Again, not something that is true, and not something reflected in either my or Sagaargarjha’s comment. If someone actually complies with a request from Apple, there is a lot more going on than ‘merely following guidelines’, an obvious one being that there may be a real problem with the content behind taken down. By saying this, you exclude the possibility that Apple is acting in good faith. To summarize, your comment was in no way a fair rewriting of Apple’s comment. You introduced a set of additional content that weren’t in anyone else’s version, and which give the appearance of Apple’s actions being the meritless bullying of a bad faith actor. That is the entire substance of your comment. It’s certainly possible that Apple’s actions are disagreeable to many people, but HN shows that they are not universally considered meritless. It’s also possible for Apple to act like a bully uninitentionally, or to actually bully developers. They are not above that and we should discuss it. But those facts don’t make your ‘rewrite’ a fair reflection.
- jedimind 6y ago
  You are all over this thread trying to protect Apple by hook or by crook, jumping into any statement and twisting and forcing your interpretations. Sagaarjha’s statement is still essentially saying the same as mine, so it's absolute nonsense to claim that it's not what Apple is saying, but then agreeing with Sagaarjha’s statement, which fundamentally says the same thing. Your zealousness in this thread exposes your unbearable bias.
  - zepto 6y ago
    It seems like I struck a nerve. There is nothing twisted about my interpretations, and I’m not defending Apple. Here are is a summary of my position: 1. I agree with Gruber - Apple shouldn’t be policing discussion of their rules. 2. Your comment is not the same as Sagaarjha’s. I have clearly explained why, and you have chosen to ignore the points I made, and attack me personally. 3. I can understand why Apple is motivated to police certain comments, and I believe the motivations are based on real problems they want to avoid in good faith. 4. Despite believing #3 I also believe #1. Just because they are acting in good faith on real problems, doesn’t mean I think they are doing the right thing. 5. I believe we should choose open OS’s and there should be a possibly mandated requirement to be able to install alternate OS’s on Apple decides (and anything else in a wide similar class). Not one thing I have said in this thread defends Apple’s actions at all. I don’t find that it helps us to understand what is going on if we simply portray them as a nasty bully without considering their motivations. If this is representative of ‘unbearable bias’, then so be it.
    - jedimind 6y ago
      > There is nothing twisted about my interpretations, and I’m not defending Apple. I stopped reading there. It's as false as it is shameless to make such a claim after all the comments you spammed across the whole thread.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Unfortunately, if you really stopped there, then you don’t understand what I mean when I say that. But, since you have such a black and white view: Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple?
        jedimind 6y ago
        > Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple? "Obviously they make their own ethical judgements when enforcing their own rules, as do we all." - It would have been more difficult to find comments from this thread where you didn't defend Apple applying all sorts of mental gymnastics.

It should be obvious, but here are things from your comment that are very different from my or saagarjha’s version: “we still want you to take the blame” Neither I, nor saargarjha nor Apple are saying anything about blame. You are putting words into Apple’s mouth here. “Don't even dare” There is nothing in my, or Apple’s or Sagaarjha’s comment that has this connotation. You are adding in the idea that Apple wants developers to be afraid. “merely following Apple’s guidelines” Again, not something that is true, and not something reflected in either my or Sagaargarjha’s comment. If someone actually complies with a request from Apple, there is a lot more going on than ‘merely following guidelines’, an obvious one being that there may be a real problem with the content behind taken down. By saying this, you exclude the possibility that Apple is acting in good faith. To summarize, your comment was in no way a fair rewriting of Apple’s comment. You introduced a set of additional content that weren’t in anyone else’s version, and which give the appearance of Apple’s actions being the meritless bullying of a bad faith actor. That is the entire substance of your comment. It’s certainly possible that Apple’s actions are disagreeable to many people, but HN shows that they are not universally considered meritless. It’s also possible for Apple to act like a bully uninitentionally, or to actually bully developers. They are not above that and we should discuss it. But those facts don’t make your ‘rewrite’ a fair reflection.

jedimind 6y ago
You are all over this thread trying to protect Apple by hook or by crook, jumping into any statement and twisting and forcing your interpretations. Sagaarjha’s statement is still essentially saying the same as mine, so it's absolute nonsense to claim that it's not what Apple is saying, but then agreeing with Sagaarjha’s statement, which fundamentally says the same thing. Your zealousness in this thread exposes your unbearable bias.
- zepto 6y ago
  It seems like I struck a nerve. There is nothing twisted about my interpretations, and I’m not defending Apple. Here are is a summary of my position: 1. I agree with Gruber - Apple shouldn’t be policing discussion of their rules. 2. Your comment is not the same as Sagaarjha’s. I have clearly explained why, and you have chosen to ignore the points I made, and attack me personally. 3. I can understand why Apple is motivated to police certain comments, and I believe the motivations are based on real problems they want to avoid in good faith. 4. Despite believing #3 I also believe #1. Just because they are acting in good faith on real problems, doesn’t mean I think they are doing the right thing. 5. I believe we should choose open OS’s and there should be a possibly mandated requirement to be able to install alternate OS’s on Apple decides (and anything else in a wide similar class). Not one thing I have said in this thread defends Apple’s actions at all. I don’t find that it helps us to understand what is going on if we simply portray them as a nasty bully without considering their motivations. If this is representative of ‘unbearable bias’, then so be it.
  - jedimind 6y ago
    > There is nothing twisted about my interpretations, and I’m not defending Apple. I stopped reading there. It's as false as it is shameless to make such a claim after all the comments you spammed across the whole thread.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Unfortunately, if you really stopped there, then you don’t understand what I mean when I say that. But, since you have such a black and white view: Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple?
      - jedimind 6y ago
        > Can you quote a single comment from this thread in which I defend Apple? "Obviously they make their own ethical judgements when enforcing their own rules, as do we all." - It would have been more difficult to find comments from this thread where you didn't defend Apple applying all sorts of mental gymnastics.