5 ms·

> The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges owners of platforms [...] face Yes. Such a challenge to choose between censorship and their

> The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges owners of platforms [...] face Yes. Such a challenge to choose between censorship and their own business interests. It's like the "challenge" to decide whether to do the right thing or not. Don't we have another word for that kind of "challenge"?

gameoverhumans 3y ago
I'm happy to stick with "challenge". It means I can lament how "morally challenged" Apple is :)
Spivak 3y ago
I mean if this exact story happened about Sean Hannity I think the reaction would be to break out the champagne and fireworks. They would be showered with praise for years for doing the right thing. I think in the real world "censorship" bad, where censorship means benign things like "yeah, I'm not paying you to turn public sentiment against a budding industry we're trying to enter" or facing any of the natural consequences of people generally being asses in public isn't so cut and dry. It's crazy how little people disrespect the freedom of non-association when it's people they like. Being published by Apple isn't some issue of public accommodation. And Apple isn't completely unfounded here, Jon's coverage of China walks the line of being anti-Chinese rather than criticizing Chinese leadership and unless it's changed very recently his coverage of "AI" is painfully ignorant to where it crosses over into not even wrong at times. And since has the gift of making literally anything he says sound reasonable it's hard to not be worried. I don't think it's enough to drop him but it's also not my call. I love Jon, I'd vote for him in 2024 but he's human and it's weird how much people mythologize him.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  Well, Hannity is a driveling liar with no critical thinking or humility or backbone. You can't compare the two with a straight face. If Jon Stewart were intentionally getting major stories entirely incorrect, fewer people would be defending him.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    You won't find any disagreement here, but that's my point. It clearly fine in principle to drop people and not associate with them, the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay. Or you can sidestep the issue entirely and just let people not associate for any reason they want with the only restriction being when that non-association interferes with other people's rights. And there's some debate to be had when this happens but this to me is a pretty clear case of that not happening.
    - unethical_ban 3y ago
      >the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay. Yes, exactly. I think people (here anyway) resent the kowtowing to the Chinese government, and so of course will goad Apple for their artistic cowardice, if it turns out they didn't want Jon to cover a topic due to concerns of a dictatorship's feelings. I guess I'm confused - are people not supposed to have value judgements on journalists, entertainers or foreign governments or trillion-dollar corporations?

gameoverhumans 3y ago

I'm happy to stick with "challenge". It means I can lament how "morally challenged" Apple is :)

Spivak 3y ago

I mean if this exact story happened about Sean Hannity I think the reaction would be to break out the champagne and fireworks. They would be showered with praise for years for doing the right thing. I think in the real world "censorship" bad, where censorship means benign things like "yeah, I'm not paying you to turn public sentiment against a budding industry we're trying to enter" or facing any of the natural consequences of people generally being asses in public isn't so cut and dry. It's crazy how little people disrespect the freedom of non-association when it's people they like. Being published by Apple isn't some issue of public accommodation. And Apple isn't completely unfounded here, Jon's coverage of China walks the line of being anti-Chinese rather than criticizing Chinese leadership and unless it's changed very recently his coverage of "AI" is painfully ignorant to where it crosses over into not even wrong at times. And since has the gift of making literally anything he says sound reasonable it's hard to not be worried. I don't think it's enough to drop him but it's also not my call. I love Jon, I'd vote for him in 2024 but he's human and it's weird how much people mythologize him.

unethical_ban 3y ago
Well, Hannity is a driveling liar with no critical thinking or humility or backbone. You can't compare the two with a straight face. If Jon Stewart were intentionally getting major stories entirely incorrect, fewer people would be defending him.
- Spivak 3y ago
  You won't find any disagreement here, but that's my point. It clearly fine in principle to drop people and not associate with them, the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay. Or you can sidestep the issue entirely and just let people not associate for any reason they want with the only restriction being when that non-association interferes with other people's rights. And there's some debate to be had when this happens but this to me is a pretty clear case of that not happening.
  - unethical_ban 3y ago
    >the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay. Yes, exactly. I think people (here anyway) resent the kowtowing to the Chinese government, and so of course will goad Apple for their artistic cowardice, if it turns out they didn't want Jon to cover a topic due to concerns of a dictatorship's feelings. I guess I'm confused - are people not supposed to have value judgements on journalists, entertainers or foreign governments or trillion-dollar corporations?