"the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I

"the argument in this article is weak. It's not an argument to stop censoring apps, it's just saying, "continue blocking speech, except when its speech that I like". " That's how a proper counter-argument has to be structured. "just do what I want to do" is bullshit and does nothing to counter to "Apple is a private company". It has to be "what you did in case X is outrageous". Not serving people without shirt and shoes as a policy is acceptable. Not serving black people as a policy is outrageous. "Personally, I believe the answer is to allow side loading" The "sideloading is enough" view concedes that not approving Drones+ fails the outrageousness test above.