The thing is, this isn't censorship "on the internet" but on their private, closed platform that people choose to be a part of.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Freedom of speech != the first amendment.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Just because they chose to be a part of that agreement doesn't mean it's OK or not worth complaining about.
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?
Don't get me wrong I have nothing against jailbreaking, but Apple supporting the jailbreaking community well that sounds a little extreme...
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.