3 ms·

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 ex

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.
- visarga 5y ago
  Wait till they ban GPT-3 because it can be prompted to write porn.

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.

visarga 5y ago
Wait till they ban GPT-3 because it can be prompted to write porn.