Apple is removing Alex Jones and InfoWars’ podcasts from iTunes
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
Not necessarily. Apple is a non-monopoly making a judgement about their corner of a decentralised protocol. That’s quite different from an ISP, where many Americans have little or no choice. Particularly when said ISPs have often received lawful monopolies and government subsidies. Context matters. Finally, my ISP doesn’t have terms of use in respect of content; Apple does.
You cherry-picked one point. Taken together, Apple’s lack of monopoly status, terms of use and lack of an explicit history of subsidies and markets exclusively granted by fiat make the First Amendment less applicable to it than e.g. Verizon.
In the cases where customers dinged ISPs for throttling, it came down to the ISPs having marketed “Internet access,” not some convoluted expansion of the First Amendment to private actors.
I believe in encouraging a public forum for the exchange of ideas. But I also believe in private citizens’—including corporations’—rights to decide with what they’re associated. In this particular case, we have someone who serially relays emotionally-charged and unambiguously-false information to his viewers. Not going to defend him unless a government tries to shut him down.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-fa...
The courts disagree. ISPs can be treated as public utilities by states, if they so choose. (New York's Public Service Commission just kicked an ISP out of the state [1].)
In any case, we are talking about specific products. Internet service with respect to ISPs; podcasting with respect to Apple. Apple does not have anything resembling a monopoly in podcasting.
[1] http://www.wktv.com/content/news/New-York-PSC-orders-Charter...
Really?
Verizon, AT&T et al according to the US Supreme Court have the right to freedom of speech just as much as you do. So yes they are free to block whatever content they want.
And you have the right to not support them, campaign against them or build your own ISP. But your right to freedom of speech shouldn't stop others right to their freedom of speech.
Also, just because one company offers a faster connection than another does not make it a monopoly. Whatever company that sells the fastest production car does not automatically have a monopoly on supplying automobiles. Choosing an ISP is more complex than simply finding the fastest speed. Price and customer service come to mind immediately as very important. And if all the ISPs offer speeds that are above your needs, speed might not even be a major factor in your decision.
So ISPs dictating what content is acceptable would be like your garbage collection company refusing to collect political flyers for an opposing party or something. Even though it’s not technically the government, I would see it as a government sponsored entity.
Now if you want something compariable, consider the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple. Even though I support gay rights, I agree there with the Supreme Court that a private entity should not be forced to endorse speech they do not agree with. And that would be what Apple is doing here.
Your summary of a natural monopoly is at odds with the definition in the wikipedia article you linked.
Another case of terrible economic nomenclature. Apple is a public private sector company.
Apple is in the private sector [1] of the economy, i.e. it "is not controlled by the State." This distinction is important to Constitutional law, since the First Amendment does not restrict the private sector; it restricts the state (also known as the public sector [2]).
Apple is a publicly-held corporation, as opposed to a privately-held one like Uber, but that's less relevant to this discussion.
There is an expectation on everyone's part to uphold these values. To practice tolerance. To pull together.
By not upholding these values, Apple is stating that they disagree with free speech. They are exercising intolerance. They are saying it is better to create separate little bubbles to exist in.
Yes they're not the US government. But fortunately, the US government is the gold standard of free speech around the world.
If companies do not wish to uphold that standard, they'll probably suffer. Like FB and Twitter did in the stock market last week.
No they are emphatically not, because Jone's screeds are not intended to be free speech as cherished by society.
They are acknowledging that society's norms can be weaponized against itself by those bent on power and destruction, and that tolerance of intolerance is incompatible with continued existence of the norms of free speech and tolerance. [1]
So Apple censoring is the same as a mall refusing you to hold a protest there, which happens all the time.
A: None.
- Apple is a private entity.
- Verizon (and all other ISPs) is/are a private entity.
- Telecom equipment and communication hubs are private entities.
If they wish, they can make you a non-existent entity (on the Web). We have two options:
- regulate some companies as utilities
- build a public network (just like the roads).
Of course, I don't see such an opinion being particularly welcomed here.
A chunk of the basic infrastructure of the internet is free just out of sheer luck (good willed inventors and founders).
1. The tech giants use their influence to get enough Democrats elected in 2018 to keep crushing any political dissent on their platforms that reaches any kind of popularity. They are ostensibly pursuing this course today, and it's a little frightening. 2. Republicans keep the house and/or Senate, and Regulation or Anti-Trust suits ramp up since half the country has no voice online anymore. 3. SV returns to the first amendment, does a 180 degree turn, and only purges illegal speech like libel, slander, threats, etc.
This is a truth. The current laws haven't done a good job at modernising and adapting to the influence these tech giants have and how they operate.
> and are all extremely left-leaning
Here's the question worth considering: Are they extremely/abnormally left leaning, or is the world getting more left leaning? What makes them left leaning? Because they advocate for general social issues like treating humans as equals and with dignity and respect?
Banning Infowars isnt banning conservative views - its banning abhorrent hate speech. Calling Sandy Hook "completely fake" and "manufactured" and saying that the kids from Stoneman Douglas High School are crisis actors isn't "right wing" or conservative.
I see the world of information like an immune system. If your system is active and repelling threats, it gets stronger. If you are never allowed to see actual threats, your system atrophies and you become the intellectual equivalent of a native American when a European colonialist shows up at your door. Bad ideas from your own side will come some day, and if your big brother has been suppressing dissent enough, you'll accept those bad ideas like a lemming off a cliff.
When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censor (besides a state church, but the amendment also banned those).
Now there are private entities with comparable censorship power to governments (examples: Google, backbone providers, cell phone carriers). For the sake of the people's natural right of free expression, the interpretation that backs your "reminder" may be obsolete, and anti-censorship law may need to be made to apply to them.
Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.
That's neither here nor there. I wasn't making an originalist textual argument in my comment, but actually the opposite. The modern world, with such powerful "private" entities that can engage in censorship, doesn't map very well onto the world of the founders in many ways. Therefore, to preserve the original effect and intent of the First Amendment, the law perhaps needs to be modified.
Luckily podcasts are designed to be decentralized, so even if Apple gets too trigger-happy with banning certain podcasts, that won’t affect anyone’s ability to still subscribe to those podcasts.
[0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#obj...
( Not sarcastic )
However, i feel if this was some left-leaning podcast, the same people supporting this removal would be outraged.
A recent (local to Australia example) was this woman fired over pro-abortion tweets (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/cricket-australia-sack...). The same people cheering about someone getting fired for anti-ssm tweets were up in arms about this.
That said I also agree that apple should be able to do business (or not) with however they like, the problem is the level of control we gave them in the first place. Everyone publishing and subscribing to iTunes is responsible for this. Site's like InfoWars especially should have seen this coming.
[1] https://www.salon.com/amp/fox-news-tucker-carlson-runs-to-al...
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other podcasts that support POTUS that haven't been removed.
https://www.adl.org/blog/louis-farrakhan-delivers-yet-anothe...
So this is raising the profile of Alex Jones.
As an aside, losing your child is probably one of the most horrific event that could happen in one's life. And moreover, imagine being harassed and accused of fabricating it and not even being able to go to the tomb. This is really hellish.
Article on the audience : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/us/politics/infowars-sand...
I don't know this South Park Mexican guy, but unless his _content_ on Apple Music is objectionable, there's no reason to remove it.
Based on a little bit of skipping around in SPM's oeuvre on Spotify, I didn't hear anything that seemed out of the ordinary for hip hop. I did not hear anything that suggested that his music would be taken as anything other than entertainment by listeners.
Services are choosing to stop carrying Jones because they believe that the product itself that they were helping distribute is harmful. With SPM there doesn't seem to be anything harmful about the product itself. It is just that a terrible person makes money from it.
That's a pretty big difference.
He's against IIRC having trans children take puberty blockers, which might be an issue, but TBH an argument can be made for the well-being of the child.
No, I think this is an issue of twitter-mob pressure against Itunes after Spotify announced they would keep Infowars content. And there are, AFAIK very few people who care one way or the other. It's more a slim minority of people who hate Alex Jones' views and wish to have his content blocked much the same way trolls are trying to take out Rick and Morty.
He’s talked extensively about the Jewish mafia. He promoted violence against the made-up “Pizzagate” B.S. and only backed down because Texan libel law is particularly stern. I support Alex Jones’ right to speak, but I don’t think—particularly in the era of the Internet—Apple should support him.
There's a Jewish Mafia?
>Pizzagate
He talked about it, sure, but if you can find me where he promotes violence against Alefantis then I'll eat my hat.
According to Jones [1][2].
(To be clear, there was a strain of Jewish-American organized crime around the turn of the last century [3], but that isn't what Jones was referring to.)
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418304/...
[2] https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alex-jones-five-...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crim...
There are mobs of all races, ethnic groups.
Although I can't speak specifically to the points mentioned by Jones, all those sources you cite are suspect.
Also, even if there were a Jewish mafia, discussing Jewish organized crime is no more anti-Jewish than discussing Italian organized crime is anti-Italian.
He once had to admit that he does it for entertainment when lawsuits happened.
But otherwise he is a right wing nutter. Apple chose not to support his podcast anymore.
He's not crazy. He's just driving sales to his on-line store this way. These days, even conspiracy nutjobs aren't honestly crazy.
It's his right to continue to spew his garbage, he just has to do it elsewhere.
Infowars is and should remain free to publish content independently of these providers, which they can easily do.
In what sense? Apple has a minority of the market. And podcasts are decentralised.
> 48% of population voted for trump
My friends who voted for Trump would find it insulting for anyone to assume they are therefore InfoWars nutters.
Of course a private entity can disregard morality for the good of the public in their decisions (they're after profits), but what happens when that private entity becomes the town square? Or when it has monopoly over something that has become a basic utility for everyone?
At this time I'm starting to cringe at opinions defending these actions with "it's a private entity".
This is one company/guy getting booted off a private platform. He is still able to go to other platforms or apply for public permits to express his viewpoint.
This xkcd seems to fit here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/94xu2n/apple_is...
He's basically lying to sell products when he lied about Sandy Hook being fake the victim's families got doxed by his crazed fans.
He also claimed the government was putting chemicals in the water that turns frogs gay, implying that the same chemicals turn people gay, etc.
This is really hurting people and it is getting out of control.
Apple cannot associate with this podcast for fear that they will be sued for listing it on their podcast lists.
For people not in the USA, Alex Jones is a chicken little conspiracy theorist claiming that the sky is falling but it is not. He claims we live on a prison planet that Nazi alien lizards that shapeshift control. Quite a bit crazy like him is also David Icke and others.
Good on Apple I say.
SCOTUS has ruled discriminating against a gay man to be akin to discriminating against him for his sex. Sex is undoubtedly a protected class. The argument is, roughly, that the person would face no prejudice if they were a woman marrying a man. But because they are a man marrying one, the treatment changes. It’s a bit convoluted, but it makes sense.
Just goes to show if you are doing anything remotely controversial do not build in Apple's ecosystem and most definitely do not invest in development of software that relies on being distributed in said ecosystem. If they ban a podcast or an app for hatespeech or wrongthink (under their 'definition' or on the basis of a hyped up PR campaign from a well funded political opponent perhaps) they can ban you for anything on a whim.
Because nobody other than a fringe minority actually wants free speech in all its deranged, violent, racist, mysgonistic, cruel, abusive forms. The majority of us just want a nice, safe space free from the nasty side of humanity.
People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram, Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major criticism whilst still happily removing content.
Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal with Instagram or Facebook.
So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of the 1990s.
You seem to be under the impression that such a safe space 1) can exist and 2) would be beneficial.
I'm going to simply point out that such a space cannot exist. People will think things, and those things will eventually leak out. There are very real evolutionary-biological reasons for all of those things and mans nature is not so easy to change.
As for whether such a space would be beneficial, I hold that it would not. It may be beneficial to have something akin to it as part of child rearing, gradually alleviated as the child gains maturity, but the dark nasty side of humanity cannot be eliminated. It can only be sublimated and disciplined. Thus, to eliminate speech simply because it offends your sensibilities is to ensure that you are blindsided as the nasty things metastasize into a cascade of pent-up Id.
And then where will you be? On your knees in front of the undealt with, undisciplined Id, simply because rather than have a dialogue with it, you chose to stuff it into a box.
Some of us prefer a non-fixed outlook and an intellectual curiosity which sometimes involves wading through unsavory content. Also known as the real world. Please do not try to stifle my choices.
( In abstract, away from gov/private entity debate )
He won't get ad revenue, but he'll still get to his message out.
I definitely don’t want my elected representatives involved in idea curation. That’s far more terrifying. Go be a journalist in Turkey to see what is truly terrifying when elected representatives get involved.
An amendment that very few other rich, developed countries have, and yet Americans appear to cling on to like it's the only thing stopping the damn wheels coming off.
Isn't 1A why y'all have Citizens United?
Principles are timeless.
Like the Golden rule.
I find the idea of the government restricting speech more terrifying. That's why we have the First Amendment. I will fight for Alex Jones' right to spew his garbage. But I'll also defend Apple's right, and in my eyes obligation, to not actively promote him.
I'm not a fan of either, but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the corporate in question.
> but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the corporate in question.
You're interested to see the polarized reactions you've imagined :)
Apple gets plenty of criticism on HN, just for different things to what Google gets criticism for.
There's no reason to believe Google would be heavily criticised on HN if they took the same action Apple is taking here.
People are sophisticated enough to consider context in their reactions to things.