7 ms·

Apple should see some of the horrendous things I’ve found in their own app, Safari. /s In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all conten

by donatj 5y ago

Apple should see some of the horrendous things I’ve found in their own app, Safari. /s In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous.

user-the-name 5y ago
Apple is holding you responsible to effectively moderate content you distribute through your service. This is completely reasonable.
- andrewinardeer 5y ago
  Who holds Apple responsible to effectively moderate the gigabytes of CSAM filmed with their products on a daily basis?
kube-system 5y ago
Facebook has a moral, contractual, and sometimes a legal obligation to moderate Instagram.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  But not Safari?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Correct, because Safari doesn’t host content.
  - spiderice 5y ago
    I can't believe how many people are trying to argue this point. You really can't see the difference between Facebook and a web browser? Are you REALLY suggesting that web browsers should censor the entire web, and if they don't then no website should be required to censor anything? Or are you just trolling/playing devil's advocate. Because it certainly feels like the latter.
kypro 5y ago
The only reasonable explanation is they never believed in this standard to begin with and just assumed they could get away with selective enforcing rules like this when it's convenient for them to do so. It would be hard to argue that the iPhone and iMessage isn't more useful than a relatively simple image sharing site like Instagram when it comes to facilitating slavery.
hugi 5y ago
Apple is not responsible for the web's content. Facebook is most definitely responsible for the content they store and provide on Instagram. It's absurd how some people dislike Apple so much they're willing to defend Facebook's right to provide human trafficking services.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Facebook/IG is bigger than the Internet in many countries, because it arrives for free on phones, and because it arrived before people started generating web content in their locale. For many of these people, Facebook == Internet. This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.
- cft 5y ago
  The analogy here is mandating Safari to block individual URLs as a condition for it remaining in the app store. Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
  - jmull 5y ago
    > People defend freedom of speech and open computing. But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook. Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.
- danbruc 5y ago
  I write a document with illegal content [1] in Word, use Adobe to turn into a PDF, upload it with Chrome through Verizon to Facebook from where a different users downloads it through AT&T and Safari to print it on their Canon printer. And the internet backbone is also somewhere in-between. And the computer manufacturers. And the operating system. And thousands of libraries. If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content? I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed? [1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.
amiga-workbench 5y ago
You joke, but if the web were invented today, browsers would never be allowed onto mobile app stores.
- blowski 5y ago
  The saddest bit of that is that mobile app stores would not exist if it weren't for the web. The only reason we got smartphones was to browse the web on the go.
- Blikkentrekker 5y ago
  Well yes, alcohol is legal and people seem surprisingly okay with how much slavery goes into the cobalt of the average mobile phone as well as the Qatar football stadium. The biggest ally of slavery is of course an œconomic dependence thereupon. — The knight in the shining armor standing for the downtrodden remains awfully silent when he depends on said downtrodden for the polish to keep his armor so shiny.
- sneak 5y ago
  If the web were invented today, search engines would get sued into oblivion.
- ohazi 5y ago
  This is already the case on iOS, where every browser must be reimplemented as a Safari skin.
snarf21 5y ago
That is not a reasonable criticism. However, Apple is far from the good guy. Look at all the pro China things they have done. People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly. Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China. I'm sure it is similar in other countries too. We know the people who make nearly everything we buy are treated not much better than slaves. It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers, look at the meat processing plants. And largely we don't care. There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us. Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad.
- z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
  No no, they putting nets up, can't even suicide anymore. Forced slavery.
- simorley 5y ago
  > Look at all the pro China things they have done. Just because they follow the rules of another nation doesn't make them 'pro China'. Is Apple 'pro-US', 'pro-EU', 'pro-Saudi Arabia', etc? No, Apple is pro-business/pro-money. They are a company selling products and services around the world. > People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly. Isn't that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company? > Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China.. So you think facebook and apple should moderate content but China shouldn't moderate content? > It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers A nice save. > There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us. Change what? Rather than trying to change individual monopolistic companies, we should allow for more competition so that we can decide where to take our business. We have a problem of monopolies. > Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad. Everyone has their own version of empathy. And everyone wants to enforce their version of empathy on everyone else. It's a problem humans and human societies have had forever.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Agree, except that we have never had any empathy except for friends an family, or at most people who are similar to us.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous It’s radical views like this which taint the technical community’s ability to project on policy. If your principles are so hardline that they’re on the side of ads for slavery, maybe double check your priors?
- sodality2 5y ago
  If your principles are so black and white that simply others' beliefs happen to benefit the bad guy one time, maybe double check YOURS. That's like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?"
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > that’s like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?" Outlawing encryption is a general and comprehensive prescription. Apple telling Facebook to stop advertising slavery, Facebook doing nothing, and Apple coming back saying “for real, it’s slavery, if you don’t knock it off we’ll ban you from our App Store,” is specific and targeted. It’s also limited, in that Safari exists.
3grdlurker 5y ago
Why stop at Apple? We understand that there is a government that is making companies liable for moderating their user-uploaded content, correct?
howinteresting 5y ago
The difference is that browser makers don't make money off the web, while Facebook makes money off of Instagram.
- 1W6MIC49CYX9GAP 5y ago
  Every browser makes money off the web. For example, Firefox makes $400 million (!) per year from making Google the default search provider.
DrBenCarson 5y ago
Apple is holding Facebook accountable for the largely automated, but exclusively revenue-driven, decisions they make on whether to amplify or to suppress any given piece of information/content/advertising. It's insidious and goes beyond editorial control. They have the power to control the national dialogue. Facebook signed up for this scrutiny when they decided that not all posts were equal. If all posts had an equal chance (i.e., were exclusively sorted chronologically) then I think this would be a very different conversation. But that's just not as profitable so `viva la sedition!`

by donatj 5y ago

user-the-name 5y ago

Apple is holding you responsible to effectively moderate content you distribute through your service. This is completely reasonable.

andrewinardeer 5y ago
Who holds Apple responsible to effectively moderate the gigabytes of CSAM filmed with their products on a daily basis?

kube-system 5y ago

Facebook has a moral, contractual, and sometimes a legal obligation to moderate Instagram.

fallingknife 5y ago
But not Safari?
- kube-system 5y ago
  Correct, because Safari doesn’t host content.
- spiderice 5y ago
  I can't believe how many people are trying to argue this point. You really can't see the difference between Facebook and a web browser? Are you REALLY suggesting that web browsers should censor the entire web, and if they don't then no website should be required to censor anything? Or are you just trolling/playing devil's advocate. Because it certainly feels like the latter.

kypro 5y ago

The only reasonable explanation is they never believed in this standard to begin with and just assumed they could get away with selective enforcing rules like this when it's convenient for them to do so. It would be hard to argue that the iPhone and iMessage isn't more useful than a relatively simple image sharing site like Instagram when it comes to facilitating slavery.

hugi 5y ago

Apple is not responsible for the web's content. Facebook is most definitely responsible for the content they store and provide on Instagram. It's absurd how some people dislike Apple so much they're willing to defend Facebook's right to provide human trafficking services.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Facebook/IG is bigger than the Internet in many countries, because it arrives for free on phones, and because it arrived before people started generating web content in their locale. For many of these people, Facebook == Internet. This is not to discourage what you are saying, it’s just a note that what Safari shows is kind of arbitrary in the abstract.
cft 5y ago
The analogy here is mandating Safari to block individual URLs as a condition for it remaining in the app store. Nobody here defends human trafficking. People defend freedom of speech and open computing.
- jmull 5y ago
  > People defend freedom of speech and open computing. But what does that have to do with Facebook? Facebook is not a free speech platform. They built and maintain their social network based on content moderation. Their social network, of course, is the reason anyone uses Facebook. Anyway, Safari doesn't host and moderate the content of the internet, but Facebook certainly does host and moderate the content of Facebook. There's no real logical connection here.
danbruc 5y ago
I write a document with illegal content [1] in Word, use Adobe to turn into a PDF, upload it with Chrome through Verizon to Facebook from where a different users downloads it through AT&T and Safari to print it on their Canon printer. And the internet backbone is also somewhere in-between. And the computer manufacturers. And the operating system. And thousands of libraries. If we want this content filtered out, what makes Facebook special in this chain such that it is their responsibility to perform the filtering? Why is Word not responsible for preventing the creation of the document in the first place? Why does the service provider not prevent the upload? Why does the printer not refuse to print the document? Or a screen blur the content? I am not arguing that it is not the responsibility of Facebook, I just want to point out that - at least at first look - this seems to be pretty arbitrary pick. So what makes Facebook special? Is it just a matter of practicality because Facebook is the single point of failure in that chain that can not be bypassed? [1] Let us ignore all the complications due to different jurisdictions.

amiga-workbench 5y ago

You joke, but if the web were invented today, browsers would never be allowed onto mobile app stores.

blowski 5y ago
The saddest bit of that is that mobile app stores would not exist if it weren't for the web. The only reason we got smartphones was to browse the web on the go.
Blikkentrekker 5y ago
Well yes, alcohol is legal and people seem surprisingly okay with how much slavery goes into the cobalt of the average mobile phone as well as the Qatar football stadium. The biggest ally of slavery is of course an œconomic dependence thereupon. — The knight in the shining armor standing for the downtrodden remains awfully silent when he depends on said downtrodden for the polish to keep his armor so shiny.
sneak 5y ago
If the web were invented today, search engines would get sued into oblivion.
ohazi 5y ago
This is already the case on iOS, where every browser must be reimplemented as a Safari skin.

snarf21 5y ago

That is not a reasonable criticism. However, Apple is far from the good guy. Look at all the pro China things they have done. People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly. Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China. I'm sure it is similar in other countries too. We know the people who make nearly everything we buy are treated not much better than slaves. It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers, look at the meat processing plants. And largely we don't care. There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us. Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
No no, they putting nets up, can't even suicide anymore. Forced slavery.
simorley 5y ago
> Look at all the pro China things they have done. Just because they follow the rules of another nation doesn't make them 'pro China'. Is Apple 'pro-US', 'pro-EU', 'pro-Saudi Arabia', etc? No, Apple is pro-business/pro-money. They are a company selling products and services around the world. > People committing suicide after being forced to work endlessly. Isn't that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company? > Agreeing to the Great Firewall rules to continue doing business in China.. So you think facebook and apple should moderate content but China shouldn't moderate content? > It is not just China, look at the Nabisco workers A nice save. > There is no reason extreme pressure couldn't start to force changes at these companies but mostly we are just glad it isn't us. Change what? Rather than trying to change individual monopolistic companies, we should allow for more competition so that we can decide where to take our business. We have a problem of monopolies. > Our whole society has lost all sense of empathy and it is sad. Everyone has their own version of empathy. And everyone wants to enforce their version of empathy on everyone else. It's a problem humans and human societies have had forever.
fallingknife 5y ago
Agree, except that we have never had any empathy except for friends an family, or at most people who are similar to us.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> In all seriousness I think Apple holding apps accountable for all content anyone on earth posts is just ludicrous It’s radical views like this which taint the technical community’s ability to project on policy. If your principles are so hardline that they’re on the side of ads for slavery, maybe double check your priors?

sodality2 5y ago
If your principles are so black and white that simply others' beliefs happen to benefit the bad guy one time, maybe double check YOURS. That's like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?"
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > that’s like saying, "Oh, we need to outlaw encryption. Oh? You disagree? Why are you siding with the child pornographers?" Outlawing encryption is a general and comprehensive prescription. Apple telling Facebook to stop advertising slavery, Facebook doing nothing, and Apple coming back saying “for real, it’s slavery, if you don’t knock it off we’ll ban you from our App Store,” is specific and targeted. It’s also limited, in that Safari exists.

3grdlurker 5y ago

Why stop at Apple? We understand that there is a government that is making companies liable for moderating their user-uploaded content, correct?

howinteresting 5y ago

The difference is that browser makers don't make money off the web, while Facebook makes money off of Instagram.

1W6MIC49CYX9GAP 5y ago
Every browser makes money off the web. For example, Firefox makes $400 million (!) per year from making Google the default search provider.

DrBenCarson 5y ago

Apple is holding Facebook accountable for the largely automated, but exclusively revenue-driven, decisions they make on whether to amplify or to suppress any given piece of information/content/advertising. It's insidious and goes beyond editorial control. They have the power to control the national dialogue. Facebook signed up for this scrutiny when they decided that not all posts were equal. If all posts had an equal chance (i.e., were exclusively sorted chronologically) then I think this would be a very different conversation. But that's just not as profitable so `viva la sedition!`