Comment by tvon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tvon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The specific reasons for rejection:

    > The following content was criticized by Apple in its review:
    > 
    > Hardware attacks: hacking chips on the (very) cheap (https://media.ccc.de/v/camp2015-6711-hardware_attacks_hacking_chips_on_the_very_cheap)
    > Bluetooth Hacking – The State of The Art (https://media.ccc.de/v/22C3-536-en-bluetooth_hacking)
    > Hacking Medical Devices (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD2013_-_5209_-_de_-_gate_104_-_201309081123_-_hacking_medical_devices_-_flo)
    > Gamehacking & Reverse Engineering (https://media.ccc.de/v/gpn15-6940-gamehacking_reverse_engineering)
    > Crypto-Hacking Export restrictions (https://media.ccc.de/v/1114)
    > Jailbreak: eine Einführung (https://media.ccc.de/v/hackover14_-_6494_-_en_-_raum_1_7_-_201410251615_-_jailbreak_eine_einfuhrung_-_erik_e)
    > Social Engineering und Industriespionage (https://media.ccc.de/v/MRMCD15-7034-social_engineering_und_industriespionage)
    > $kernel->infect(): Creating a cryptovirus for Symfony2 apps (https://media.ccc.de/v/froscon2014_-_1436_-_en_-_hs6_php_-_201408231115_-_kernel-_infect_creating_a_cryptovirus_for_symfony2_apps_-_raul_fraile)

To be fair, CCC does have hacking content so its quite possible an automated filtering process would flag it.

That said, its sad how much cenorship we have on the Internet vs. 20 years ago.

The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private, closed platform that people choose to be a part of.

Yes, that is how censorship works nowadays: you can put it online, but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.

Freedom of speech isn't really the right to say what you want to a large group of people, it's the right to say what you want _period_ regardless of who's listening. It's your job to find an audience.

That's an easy stance to take - I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech": You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.

Of course there is no right to an audience. But if the success or failue of finding an audience starts to depend on the goodwill of a few powerful gatekeepers (media/TV companies before and now apparently "platform" operators) then the right to free speech stops to really be worth very much.

You have the right to say anything you want, you do not have the right to say it in my home. I don't understand how there are so many people that don't understand FOS.

They understand it perfectly - you're conflating the law (the government isn't allowed to prevent you from speaking) with the principle it's based on (restricting people's ability to speak is a backwards, repressive thing to do).

Freedom of speech != the first amendment.

The story talks about an European group trying to reach a global audience. I was making a more general point about how over-reliance on private platforms makes censorship much easier for governments and corporations everywhere. Why do you guys keep assuming that "the law" equals "US law as I understand it"?

I'm sorry but your definition of FOS is radical. I think few people would agree that FOS means you can say anything anywhere at anytime.

I've extended the "in my home" argument to "on my website" before--e.g. Reddit restricting what you can say on Reddit is not really censorship--but stretching "in my home" to mean "on the hardware which you purchased from me" seems like rather a different thing.

> That's an easy stance to take

No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access.

> I'm sure many oppressive regimes would be more than happy to permit that definition of "freedom of speech"

Can we drop the hyperbole and focus on the discussion please?

>No that's the 100% correct stance to take. You are not forced to use Apple's products or their walled garden, and they are not required to grant you access.

It doesn't matter if you're forced or not. In a world where the majority chooses to use them (for other reasons, e.g. convenience, features, price, etc), the company controlling what's broadcast on them is censorship, and has the same effects as censoring the publishing of a book had in 1700.

If the majority had chosen those platforms with the EXPLICIT goal of avoiding your content that would be another thing.

"...they are not required to grant you access."

They're not granting me access, they're restricting my access to content they don't own. They have no real right to deny me access.

They have no right to deny you access to their platform or to deny content from being distributed through their platform. Something about that sounds incorrect.

What you described is not a right, and they are allowed to control what is or is not in their store. Whether you like it or not.

Well, a black man not being a slave wasn't his right in 1840 Georgia either. Staying in the same hotel as whites wasn't his right in 1950.

It's always better to concentrate at what we think SHOULD be the right or what it's we consider ethical, than merely restating what happens to be the law, which can very easily be BS.

And "whether we like it or not" plays a huge role in having laws changed -- that's where we should be starting from, not waving it away as if we're some kind of non-citizen slaves where things are just forced upon us.

> You may say whatever you like, provided no one is there to hear it.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are granted unmitigated control over the content a private medium, channel, or platform. For example, it doesn't imply that I can force the New York Times to publish this comment in their newspaper, nor can I force NBC to read this comment aloud on the nightly news. Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.

>Similarly, I cannot force Apple to publish my content on their platform. In no way does this violate of my freedom of speech.

Only in the sense that this "freedom of speech" is codified in current law -- and that's specific to the US even, elsewhere can differ.

Other countries for examples don't allow a shop owner discriminate as to who he choses to do business with (e.g. like that Colorado bakery that refused to sell to gay couples).

I'd say it would be good for society if companies having mass business platforms were forced by law to not be allowed to censor anything not already censorable by law already (e.g. child pornography, libel etc).

Freedom of speech in a liberal democracy comes packaged with the right for property. And your freedom of speech does not hold on other people's property.

Not trying to defend Apple, but I find it interesting how many people on HN willingly embraced walled gardens. Thankfully the web is still there, still open and great.

We keep building spaces that we treat as public but aren't. That's a problem even if the individual actions are defensible.

And monitored.

Relevant: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali...

> but simply won't get it anywhere near a channel where any sizeable amount of people might see it.

They have a youtube channel, with over three million views, which can be accessed from any device with a modern browser. Your definition of "censorship" seems to be an incredibly liberal one.

Censorship is actively preventing content from reaching people. It's not a liberal definition, it's a literal one.

By that definition, there is still no censorship happening here. Apple isn't preventing content from reaching anyone, because that content is still available through the youtube app on the same platform and any available web browser.

Forcing someone to display someone else's content is also a form of oppression and censorship.

Was it any better 20 years ago though?

I mean today a sole internet webpage/domain by the CCC might reach 10x as many people as it would back 20 years ago.

Besides, even if it was available on Apple TV would many people care for it?

It seems like some people don't just ask for distribution on those "closed gardens" (which CCC are denied, and I agree it would be better if they got), but they also fantasize that had they had said distribution it would also magically give them some huge audience.

Not potential audience, mind you -- rather it's as if they think that merely being there they deserve/should/would be a success.

Come to think of it, that's also the case with some people allowed in the closed gardens -- they lament that "hey, I made my app/content and got it there, where's my top 10 spot?".

I guess those people can't understand than in a list of N places (the top 1000 most successful apps say), if the candidates are MxN (where M>1), then (M-1)*N of them won't make the list.

I thought YouTube was pretty popular nowadays, and you can watch the CCC videos there.

People are choosing to agree to EULAs that say they have no right to sue for any reason, but agree in advance in the case of disputes that they'll submit to binding arbitration by an arbiter chosen by company, and if the consumer loses that they pay all the costs associated with that arbitration.

Just because they chose to be a part of that agreement doesn't mean it's OK or not worth complaining about.

There is a nice comparison. We have a newspaper distributor in Germany, having 54% of market share. I one paper would print a story, reporting some shady ongoings inside this distributor, he would be forbidden by regulation not to distribute this paper.

So it is his walled garden, but policy has thought about such things happening if one market player becomes strong enough to hamper the "free" flow of information.

The content that is shown by the CCC app can also be watched in the YouTube app or in safari. Do these apps have to go?

It might be more clear to observe that many popular Internet things created in the past 20 years have content restrictions. I think it's totally valid to ask why that is and by what mechanism(s) it was caused.

Yes but how certain are we that it wasn't an automated program that flagged it causing a rejection [possibly by a human who just obeys the flags most of the time]?

That doesn't make Apple's behavior right, of course.

Of course i understand Apple should be rewarding hackers who research and report security flaws, and not punish them, but do they really need to support/allow hackers who don't intend to report these security flaws to Apple but instead use them to create jailbreaks?

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against jailbreaking, but Apple supporting the jailbreaking community well that sounds a little extreme...

The problem is the angle here. Apple chooses to be arbiters of content. That shouldn't be their job. If the app used private APIs or misused background processing, it's good for us, the consumer, that Apple makes sure it doesn't get released in that fashion.

But I reject that it's good for us, the (adult) consumer that Apple act as parental controls for adults. They're using a position of power to stifle speech. It doesn't matter if it's a First Amendment violation - it's still egregious.

It's their platform. Don't use it if you don't like it.

Their "private closed platform" that is based on monopolies and privilege provided from the public coffers - spectrum auctioned off by the FCC, publicly subsidized student debt used to buy iphones and macs, off the rails "intellectual" monopolies through off-the-rails copyrights and patents, and soon to be legal immunity from CISA for sharing info with the government. They clearly like to pretend that they are a "commons" deserving of public support... except when they don't.

It's not really even censored from Apple devices since you can watch all the same videos through the Apple TV YouTube app.

I wonder if the same dismissive attitudes would take place if the Youtube app were required to block said content, or were to completely disable/remove youtube from the store because of questionable content on youtube.

Probably not, censoring Youtube like that would be a pretty big deal, and not at all what customers using the app would expect.

But... as long as it isn't, that seems to be a pretty decent argument that CCC isn't really being oppressed or silenced or anything quite so ominous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com