Are those shows likely to incite violence which may result in people being killed ?
Because in Hong Kong similar channels were used to kill police.
This isn't a simple question of censorship.
Because in Hong Kong similar channels were used to kill police.
This isn't a simple question of censorship.
In my view it's one of those situations when Apple is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
That if you're an innocent, mis-identified person and get killed it's ok because you live in a regime where worse things could happen to you?
That identification videos identify the correct person, or often enough that a few killed innocents is "worth it"?
That it's ok to kill police in general in a bad regime?
That it's ok to kill police who are beating up protestors?
(These points combine: The statistical bias is such that if the wrong person is identified, it will tend to pick a police person who wasn't involved in the scene, rather than a non-police person who wasn't involved.)
(Btw, I think it's up to each person to decide for themselves, if at all possible, if being killed is worse than an alternative. It's a very personal decision.)
That's why we can't let corporations decide on that
Apple can censor content on the App Store. They should not do anything inside the apps on App Store.
In the case of videos which might get people beaten or killed or other things, you can argue that Apple shouldn't act to take those down due to anti-censorship principles, or you can argue that Apple should act due to anti-beating-and-killing-or-other principles.
What you can't correctly argue is that Apple should avoid getting involved.
It's literally impossible for them to not be involved. Whatever they do or don't do has the effect of supporting one outcome or the other.
It is not possible for Apple to start moderating all user generated content in all apps. They shouldn't do it.
I gave another example below-
Imagine if Chrome decides to stop connecting to a site because the Govt asks Google to do it. They can do it. But they shouldn't
It's not the same as argument for "avoid getting involved".
They can't choose not be involved, there's literally no way to avoid being involved once you're providing facilities.
The act of producing software which "does not moderate user generated content" is an action demonstrating a particular set of values. It's not neutral.
If you make a claim, you have to back it up with reasons. Your statement is not self-evident.
Imagine if Chrome decides to stop connecting to a site because the Govt asks Google to do it. They can do it. But they shouldn't
I don't know if that is the case, but if it is then they aren't taking sides.
"Taking no action is action too" - not quite accurate here, but ignoring the nuance that this situation is similar to the Nazi resistance trying to organize, how would we respond if Apple was wanting the removing of communications sharing Nazi command and personnel "secrets"?
I think if you weighed them overall you ll find however that ‘fanboiism’ is overweight