6 ms·

How does that help Apple's case? Isn't the fact that some competing store can't offer porn apps on iOS proof in Epic's favor that Apple should allow 3rd party s

How does that help Apple's case? Isn't the fact that some competing store can't offer porn apps on iOS proof in Epic's favor that Apple should allow 3rd party stores? There are plenty of VR 3D Porn games (not video). They could potentially run on iOS but since there is no way to install them and no alternative store they aren't allowed. Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. Apple might not sell porn videos, or porn books (though they probably actually do), or porn music (though the probably actually do) but, all of those things can be installed on your iOS device in other ways. But, porn apps can not and there are plenty of types of porn apps that can't be done via web apps, and certainly not via iOS Safari with it's lack of APIs. If Apple blocked users from watching/reading/listening to porn on their iOS device people would be likely find it unacceptable. The same should be true for porn apps by Apple's own logic.

ben_w 5y ago
IIRC (and IANAL), the USA’s free speech thing is about preventing the government from limiting it (except they do limit it anyway), and never prevented private companies from limiting it on their own turf. I do feel that super-massive companies need similar restrictions on what they can do as governments, and for similar reasons, but that’s for the future not for the present.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  While all of that is true, the bigger question in this argument is whether or not Apple can justify the premise of restricting speech on its platform as arbitrarily/selectively as it does without being taking to task for interfering in the operation of the product they sold. For example, was Apple in the right to threaten Telegram with expulsion from the App Store for user-generated chatrooms protesting the election in Belarus when such events are the function of chatroom services? Would Apple have done the same with iMessage, Discord, Facebook Messenger, IRC clients, etc for similar discussions Apple deemed inappropriate the previous example? We can all agree Apple has a 1st amendement right to freedom of association. But how far does it justify hypocrisy, unwritten rules, retroactive changes to their EULA, and interference in commerce at point of sale or after the fact? At some point a contract must be a contract and not a list of suggestions or commands subject to whimsical application. Not on Apple's or Epic's. On another note, I'm surprised Apple hasn't interfered with Tinder or dating apps as a whole considering that user-generated content on those is almost certainly pornographic.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    By the definition you're using here, any messaging app has user generated pornographic content. People sext on every service. Policing private messages isn't expected though.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      ... unless you Think of The Children™ and conclude that the potential to transmit child porn is a sufficient reason to criminalize e2ee...
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      They have and that's my point. Any medium of communication can and has been used for pornographic distribution. Mail, Lithograph, Magazines, Comic Books, Movies, Telephone, SMS, the Internet, BBS, Usenet, etc and I'm sure there'll be more by the time Apple is gone. If wants to dictate what people can watch or receive in addition to what they say, at any point in time they can boot off UPS and Netflix. And it's telling that they haven't. Apple's decision points have no consistency if such consistency is predicated on Mr.Cook's claim that all developers are treated equally (however he happens to define it). Why Telegram and not Tinder or iMessage as a medium of distrribution? With respect to your point about private messages, do those private messages become public when more than two people are involved? Would that mean that conferencing apps like Skype, Zoom, Teams, or Slack fall under the aegis of Apple's benevolent dictatorship so long as they wish to keep a cubby in App Store? Or is there something more going on. (My money is on the latter but who knows?) To cut to the chase, Apple's positions are similar to a tyrannical parent justifying it's trigger-happy hot-and-cold approach in a roundabout pseudological fashion that ,once untangled, spells out "ipse dixit". The company affirms the conclusions of its arguments by merely citing their name, whereas similar actions from Microsoft or Amazon would warrant shaming or at least suspicion even where the latter two would a plausible justification. While I don't recommend anti-trust provisions (as that doesn't solve the underlying problem with how Apple or an Apple rump company engages in business) an investigation by the FTC into Apple's actual business conduct cross-examined with Apple's/Cook's lofty if shallow claims is more than appropriate to assess whether Apple has perpetrated a fraud against developers and consumers.
- anchpop 5y ago
  That’s a common misconception. The supreme court has ruled that free speech applies to places that act as a public square. That’s why, in some areas, malls aren’t allowed to kick out protestors, because they mall is considered a public square in the community. Currently they don’t consider any online platform a public square, but nothing prevents them from changing their mind on that issue
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    While I'm not fond of Apple's schizophrenic application of its own contracts, your statements miss some considerations in those Supreme cases 1.physical presence 2.access to private infrastructure for the common person In both cases, protesting from a company-town owned (and therefore private) sidewalk or within a mall (only in California) is allowed due to the fact a person had to be there to enjoy the right to free expression and the access to private infrastructure granted to the average person under normal circumstances must be granted to a common protester. Neither the web nor the App Store would qualify as a public square any more than privately owned networks on cable TV. There is no physical presence (self-explanatory) and access to private infrastructure for the common person is the same for the common protestor (Apple's way or the highway in both cases). In other words, it doesn't change Apple's position. In fact there would be plenty of Supreme court issues against such a decision. One such argument is that, given code=speech, Apple carrying an application against its will would be compelled speech. As I've previously said, I don't agree with the idea that Apple or the App Store must be subject to anti-trust provisions (e.g public square, common carrier, etc).Apple shouldn't have to bear a fiduciary relationship with developers or consumers. Apple should just follow a consistent contract and not reinterpret it willy nilly.
    - johnnyanmac 5y ago
      I feel the points mark similar allegories to physical presence. The idea is that you cannot just shoo protestors to protest in a little corner of the town where few see them. Because that impacts the effectiveness of a protest and can effectively squash revolution before it begins. In this respect, with the conglomeration of the internet into a few dozen big news hubs you can argue that the defense of "don't do this on Twitter, protest on your own blog" is becoming increasingly similar to "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home". spinning up a competitor to twitter to get the reach needed to effectively protest is about as feasible as buying a lot of land in a public area to protest on (heck, nowadays, change that to any land at all). The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
- pyuser583 5y ago
  In the past, the US has absolutely acted laws that require third parties to respect fee speech of other third parties.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  > limiting it on their own turf After I pay Apple $1000 for their product, is it really their turf any more? It’s certainly not the case when buying a house from someone. Or basically anything but an iPhone or Tesla.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    it seems most ppl on HN have already conceded their rights to private property. We are moving to a sort of digital peasantry and everyone is okay with that because Apple is like a digital lord, and their 'rights' to their land are more important than our personal liberty
pjc50 5y ago
Don't assume that popularity would fall that way.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago
> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. You're using the wrong terms. This is an anti-trust case, not a free speech case. You kind of end up in the same place though. Apple provides various services and doesn't allow porn. That's fine, someone else can provide a competing service that does allow porn and people can choose what they want. Until Apple prohibits the competitor from operating, an anti-competitive act.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Well sort of. Apple saying "we don't want porn on IPhone" isn't anticompetitive. Apple saying that only they can provide such content probably would be though.
techrat 5y ago
> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. It's disheartening to see how many people have no clue what 'free speech' means when they use this argument online. Legal Definition of freedom of speech: : the right to express information, ideas, and opinions *free of government restrictions* based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution There are also things that are NOT considered protected speech. For example, you cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater and claim it's a free speech right. This falls under the "harm principle" exception. Fighting words is another example. Two things people need to remember when it comes to free speech: 1) It's not absolute, you still suffer the consequences of the things you say, and 2) It doesn't apply to privately owned locations, services or media. So, no, being banned from Twitter is not a violation of your free speech. No, Apple banning or blocking porn from within apps is not a violation of free speech. No, being arrested for threatening to kill someone is not a violation of your free speech.
- throwaway3699 5y ago
  This is completely incorrect. Free speech is a moral principle, and the First Amendment is but one legal implementation of said principle. The argument here is that large corporations should be restrained just like governments are (and for the same reasons, too).
  - techrat 5y ago
    You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive? Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.

ben_w 5y ago

IIRC (and IANAL), the USA’s free speech thing is about preventing the government from limiting it (except they do limit it anyway), and never prevented private companies from limiting it on their own turf. I do feel that super-massive companies need similar restrictions on what they can do as governments, and for similar reasons, but that’s for the future not for the present.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
While all of that is true, the bigger question in this argument is whether or not Apple can justify the premise of restricting speech on its platform as arbitrarily/selectively as it does without being taking to task for interfering in the operation of the product they sold. For example, was Apple in the right to threaten Telegram with expulsion from the App Store for user-generated chatrooms protesting the election in Belarus when such events are the function of chatroom services? Would Apple have done the same with iMessage, Discord, Facebook Messenger, IRC clients, etc for similar discussions Apple deemed inappropriate the previous example? We can all agree Apple has a 1st amendement right to freedom of association. But how far does it justify hypocrisy, unwritten rules, retroactive changes to their EULA, and interference in commerce at point of sale or after the fact? At some point a contract must be a contract and not a list of suggestions or commands subject to whimsical application. Not on Apple's or Epic's. On another note, I'm surprised Apple hasn't interfered with Tinder or dating apps as a whole considering that user-generated content on those is almost certainly pornographic.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  By the definition you're using here, any messaging app has user generated pornographic content. People sext on every service. Policing private messages isn't expected though.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    ... unless you Think of The Children™ and conclude that the potential to transmit child porn is a sufficient reason to criminalize e2ee...
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    They have and that's my point. Any medium of communication can and has been used for pornographic distribution. Mail, Lithograph, Magazines, Comic Books, Movies, Telephone, SMS, the Internet, BBS, Usenet, etc and I'm sure there'll be more by the time Apple is gone. If wants to dictate what people can watch or receive in addition to what they say, at any point in time they can boot off UPS and Netflix. And it's telling that they haven't. Apple's decision points have no consistency if such consistency is predicated on Mr.Cook's claim that all developers are treated equally (however he happens to define it). Why Telegram and not Tinder or iMessage as a medium of distrribution? With respect to your point about private messages, do those private messages become public when more than two people are involved? Would that mean that conferencing apps like Skype, Zoom, Teams, or Slack fall under the aegis of Apple's benevolent dictatorship so long as they wish to keep a cubby in App Store? Or is there something more going on. (My money is on the latter but who knows?) To cut to the chase, Apple's positions are similar to a tyrannical parent justifying it's trigger-happy hot-and-cold approach in a roundabout pseudological fashion that ,once untangled, spells out "ipse dixit". The company affirms the conclusions of its arguments by merely citing their name, whereas similar actions from Microsoft or Amazon would warrant shaming or at least suspicion even where the latter two would a plausible justification. While I don't recommend anti-trust provisions (as that doesn't solve the underlying problem with how Apple or an Apple rump company engages in business) an investigation by the FTC into Apple's actual business conduct cross-examined with Apple's/Cook's lofty if shallow claims is more than appropriate to assess whether Apple has perpetrated a fraud against developers and consumers.
anchpop 5y ago
That’s a common misconception. The supreme court has ruled that free speech applies to places that act as a public square. That’s why, in some areas, malls aren’t allowed to kick out protestors, because they mall is considered a public square in the community. Currently they don’t consider any online platform a public square, but nothing prevents them from changing their mind on that issue
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  While I'm not fond of Apple's schizophrenic application of its own contracts, your statements miss some considerations in those Supreme cases 1.physical presence 2.access to private infrastructure for the common person In both cases, protesting from a company-town owned (and therefore private) sidewalk or within a mall (only in California) is allowed due to the fact a person had to be there to enjoy the right to free expression and the access to private infrastructure granted to the average person under normal circumstances must be granted to a common protester. Neither the web nor the App Store would qualify as a public square any more than privately owned networks on cable TV. There is no physical presence (self-explanatory) and access to private infrastructure for the common person is the same for the common protestor (Apple's way or the highway in both cases). In other words, it doesn't change Apple's position. In fact there would be plenty of Supreme court issues against such a decision. One such argument is that, given code=speech, Apple carrying an application against its will would be compelled speech. As I've previously said, I don't agree with the idea that Apple or the App Store must be subject to anti-trust provisions (e.g public square, common carrier, etc).Apple shouldn't have to bear a fiduciary relationship with developers or consumers. Apple should just follow a consistent contract and not reinterpret it willy nilly.
  - johnnyanmac 5y ago
    I feel the points mark similar allegories to physical presence. The idea is that you cannot just shoo protestors to protest in a little corner of the town where few see them. Because that impacts the effectiveness of a protest and can effectively squash revolution before it begins. In this respect, with the conglomeration of the internet into a few dozen big news hubs you can argue that the defense of "don't do this on Twitter, protest on your own blog" is becoming increasingly similar to "don't protest in the mall, do it at your own home". spinning up a competitor to twitter to get the reach needed to effectively protest is about as feasible as buying a lot of land in a public area to protest on (heck, nowadays, change that to any land at all). The metaphor isn't perfect, but that's because the digital space is a very different area , and I sort of hate the constant comparisons of the internet to physical land in terms of ruling. If we had access to instant, worldwide teleportation technology in the 1700's, I'm sure we'd need entirely new rulesets and ethics to take this into account. That's basically what the digital space is.
pyuser583 5y ago
In the past, the US has absolutely acted laws that require third parties to respect fee speech of other third parties.
Aeolun 5y ago
> limiting it on their own turf After I pay Apple $1000 for their product, is it really their turf any more? It’s certainly not the case when buying a house from someone. Or basically anything but an iPhone or Tesla.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  it seems most ppl on HN have already conceded their rights to private property. We are moving to a sort of digital peasantry and everyone is okay with that because Apple is like a digital lord, and their 'rights' to their land are more important than our personal liberty

pjc50 5y ago

Don't assume that popularity would fall that way.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. You're using the wrong terms. This is an anti-trust case, not a free speech case. You kind of end up in the same place though. Apple provides various services and doesn't allow porn. That's fine, someone else can provide a competing service that does allow porn and people can choose what they want. Until Apple prohibits the competitor from operating, an anti-competitive act.

joshuamorton 5y ago
Well sort of. Apple saying "we don't want porn on IPhone" isn't anticompetitive. Apple saying that only they can provide such content probably would be though.

techrat 5y ago

> Note: Apple themselves argued code = speech in their FBI trial. Given that, disallowing certain apps is disallowing certain speech. It's disheartening to see how many people have no clue what 'free speech' means when they use this argument online. Legal Definition of freedom of speech: : the right to express information, ideas, and opinions *free of government restrictions* based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution There are also things that are NOT considered protected speech. For example, you cannot shout "Fire" in a movie theater and claim it's a free speech right. This falls under the "harm principle" exception. Fighting words is another example. Two things people need to remember when it comes to free speech: 1) It's not absolute, you still suffer the consequences of the things you say, and 2) It doesn't apply to privately owned locations, services or media. So, no, being banned from Twitter is not a violation of your free speech. No, Apple banning or blocking porn from within apps is not a violation of free speech. No, being arrested for threatening to kill someone is not a violation of your free speech.

throwaway3699 5y ago
This is completely incorrect. Free speech is a moral principle, and the First Amendment is but one legal implementation of said principle. The argument here is that large corporations should be restrained just like governments are (and for the same reasons, too).
- techrat 5y ago
  You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive? Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.