Hacker News Reader

Comment by eevilspock | Hacker News Reader

I think iOS is better than Android. I support the idea of a walled garden in principle (as long as it isn't a monopoly, and in this case it isn't. People can choose Android or others).

But the free flow of honest information is fundamental to democracy. This is stupid and gutless editorial censorship on Apple's part (unless there's some detail about this story that I'm missing). I hope someone higher up sees this, reverses the decision, and clarifies their internal standards on this.

Fucking lame Apple! Shape the fuck up!

@Rudism: ditto.

View on HN

You support a walled garden, but not if it blocks information?

I'm sorry, but that's completely contradictory. The point of the wall is that it blocks things Apple don't approve of.

The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information. I think it's reasonable to support walled gardens in principle but be critical of some aspects of the Apple implementation.

I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea.

We have enough problems as is with anti-malware software throwing false positives, so who is to say that Apple can do any better? Likewise, "spammy apps" and "malware" are terms subject to definitions given by the curator. If we use past history as any indicator, then it seems Apple has already proven that the company has it's own definitions for these terms.

"I really despise the usage of a "Slippery Slope" claim, but I think that this really embodies the idea."

Huh? This does not parse.

Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

This is one example everyone should know: http://www.quora.com/How-can-supporters-of-gay-marriage-refu...

The logical fallacy here is the assumption that the guidelines imposed by apple won't lead to straight up draconian rules, which they almost already have. There is a reason why utopias do not exist.

Jeez louis, who's making that logical fallacy? Don't put your interpretation into other people's mouths. The moment Apple crosses a line, I'll bail. But I disagree that it has. It's just a fucking phone, for Christ's sake. And you can still do this app as a web app.

It's a question of two imperfect approaches. Google's "open" Android market (it isn't quite totally open is it?) is far from utopia too, no? All that malware sucks for non-technical users. Why not allow users the choice between both approaches? Or shall we follow your "draconian rule" and disallow this choice?

You should get an actual (and logical) understanding of "logical fallacy" and then review your comments above. Sigh.

One point to make: I didn't give you any downmods, because I can't and refuse to do so.

Let me see if I can explain this in more detail. I'm not saying the android market is perfect, nor am I saying that the iOS market is an ideal solution. My point is that the original statement:

> The ideal walled garden would be one that blocks spammy apps and malware - but not information

is a logical fallacy. Information is a very broad term, so the assumption that an overlord curator can perform their job in a non-invasive manner while magically defining what "bad" means is a road to hell. What we need is effectively the reddit of app stores; one curated by the community instead of a black box of employees. The tyranny of the democratic majority is still an issue, but it seems that this is a far more fair solution than what exists now.

It is an effort in futility to find the perfect end all solution, because that utopia can't exist. I would, however, rather have the risk of getting coal instead of diamonds instead of just what a company tells me is a diamond.

I respect you for your refusal to downmod.

But as to "logical fallacy"... as Inigo Montoya would say, You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's just a fucking phone, for Christ's sake.

There's a lot more at stake here than that. These kinds of devices are quickly becoming the primary or even the only means of accessing the internet for a lot of people.

Sure, in theory a well curated walled garden is the perfect solution. In practice, though, there will always be disagreements between what should and shouldn't be outside those walls. And this is just my opinion, but a walled garden run by a giant corporation will always be seriously flawed.

I support a walled garden, as long as there is always a door that I can open.

The door leads to the walled garden next door. What do?

You can support an approach and also believe someone is doing it stupidly, or even unethically, all without being contradictory.

For example, do you support the right of a newspaper editor to pick and choose which letters to the editor get published? How about a restaurant's reserved "right to refuse service to anyone"? If you do, you still reserve the right in each of these cases to object to individual decisions, and to refuse patronage if an individual decision or a pattern of decisions offends you. All without contradicting yourself.

But that's exactly the problem with the benevolent dictatorship model. Sooner or later this kind of absolute power is used unwisely or outright abused and you have no recourse.

This is why almost every country in the world has abandoned monarchy. It's ultimately too error-prone and inefficient.

What you seem to propose as an alternative to monarchy is not democracy, but anarchy. No rules sounds great in principle...

Even Linux has King Linus. And Android has King Page, Queen Rubin and a host of Lords (Verizon, AT&T, Samsung, etc). Don't kid yourself.

Furthermore, we're talking about a product, a phone, not national governments or the sovereignty of citizens over them. Poor strawman.

> Even Linux has King Linus.

Once upon a time (a few years ago), King Linus and his nobles weren't terribly happy with many of the technical decisions the Android team made. How did King Linus exercise his sovereignty? Did it stop the Android team from doing what they wanted?

You're missing the point. Linux would never have gotten to the point of being useful for Android if Linus Torvalds didn't have a benevolent dictatorship.

Anyway, if you are truly for freedom, support Apple's freedom to do things its way and Google's to do things its way. You can follow whichever one you want. Or did you want to dictate to me and millions of others that they can't choose a walled-garden such as Apple's if that's what we want?

You want to shove your preferred freedom down our throats?

You want to shove your preferred freedom down our throats?

Not at all. Make yourself right at home in your cozy walled garden. Just stop using bogus patent suits to drive the products I want to buy off the shelves and compete on features instead.

My point is that whatever you want to call the governance model of Linux it isn't anything like a (non-joking) dictatorship. A real dictator could and would have stopped the Android team from leaving (i.e. made them do things his way or not at all). Linus not only didn't stop them from leaving, he couldn't.

When the benevolence is built-in, it isn't a dictatorship, it's something else. And something else doesn't support your argument about walled gardens, it undermines it.

With an Android phone I can limit myself to what's available on Google Play or I can patronize any of the third-party app markets or I can manually side-load any app I want. If I don't like a particular vendor's form factor or UI customizations I have many alternatives. Those of us unafraid of a little variety call this choice, not anarchy.

And in a world where a lot of people access the internet only through a phone these decisions carry a lot more weight than your choice of shoes or your car.

I think that this kind of abuse is an irresistable temptation of a walled garden. If the garden's curators don't succumb to it themselves, the single-point-of-pressure is too much of a temptation to would-be government or external private sector censors.

When dealing with situations like this, we have a couple options. We can accept walled gardens and hope that the gardeners are made of stern stuff and love freedom.

Or we can reject walled gardens and demand ecosystems in which this kind of blocking can't happen, not just won't.

I prefer worlds where it can't. Trusting that it won't is setting up for disappointment IMO.

Exactly. Didn't some senator asked Apple to remove some app in the early days? When Apple acts like this with their store, it's almost irresistible for the Government to ask them to remove some other apps they don't like either.

Apple has never stated that the purpose of the appstore is to support democracy. And I think it would be hard to argue that the availability of apps (or lack thereof) in Apple's store, which is not even close to a monopoly, has any impact on democracy. I think what's really going on here is that Apple wants to avoid providing apps that might be politically divisive.

EDIT: qualifying availability of apps as within Apples' App Store

>I think what's really going on here is that Apple wants to avoid providing apps that might be politically divisive.

That's called "censorship".

Apple's store has an impact on democracy because Apple is very influential and other companies are likely to imitate their policies. Lots of young people are getting exposed to Apple's flavor of personal computer so, to them, censorship of software will seem normal.

I concede that it may be censorship. So is Walmart's decision not to sell certain CDs or Blockbuster's decision not to stock certain movies. Android Marketplace (or Google Play) has more apps than the Apple App Store (http://www.androidauthority.com/google-android-market-vs-app...). Clearly, Apple's policies have not been imitated. Apple's censorship has, in fact, become a point of differentiation for other markets, thereby drawing more attention to the issue. And I don't concede that young people will accept censorship of software because they're exposed to apple products. It's all conjecture but given that Android phones are cheaper and have more market share then iOS I find that last statement to be extremely speculative.

Yep, censorship. Legal, profitable censorship. Caveat emptor.

Newspapers are very influential, more so than Apple. Will you claim that they should print all letters to the editor, with no discretion?

How about Hacker News? Shall we lobby pg to remove the ability to flag an article, and let this place turn into Reddit?

Yesterday an article I liked had a healthy debate going. It was flagged as not fit for HN (It was political, about race not technology in any way) and it was taken off. I was initially annoyed but I agree with the decision. Isn't there a benefit to having distinction (HN vs Reddit), or choice as all the Android fans preach?

[Please read my other comments before you assume I agree with Apple's decision here.]

>Newspapers are very influential, more so than Apple. Will you claim that they should print all letters to the editor, with no discretion?

Newspapers have limited space and no filtering capabilities for readers.

>How about Hacker News? Shall we lobby pg to remove the ability to flag an article, and let this place turn into Reddit?

I have the choice to use my web browser to read sites other than HN (and I don't need to jailbreak my browser to do so).

And you don't have the choice to buy a different brand of phone?

Limited space is NOT why newspapers have editors. There's a reason the NY Times is so different from the Wall Street Journal.

As I just said in another comment, Even Linux has King Linus. And Android has King Page, Queen Rubin and a host of Lords (Verizon, AT&T, Samsung, etc). Don't kid yourself.

And to repeat, I think Apple's decision in this case is lame and cowardly.

A letter to the editor is similar to an app? How?

In the sense that private censorship isn't something we should be overly concerned with. This isn't government censorship, this is a private business making a business decision. Go into any store and start yelling at the customers like a street preacher. You will be asked to leave. Same thing at any party. That isn't ehrmagahd censorship.

"I think iOS is better than Android."

That might've been true during the first few versions of Android but I don't think that's the case nowadays. I sold my iPad 2 and bought a Nexus 7 and I don't really miss anything. I certainly do NOT miss not being able to sideload software outside of an app store, or the lack of customization.

In fact I feel that the interface in Jelly Bean is an improvement over iOS in many ways. And it has stronger cloud support, I particularly like how it sync with my online, public Picasa galleries and the like.

Why did you open with that sentence? Were you replying to someone or just trying to instigate an argument?

I was trying to show that even though I prefer Apple's product and even though I think the walled garden is a legitimate idea, I think in this instance (and many others) Apple is being stupid and cowardly.

Most people on HN, probably with good reason, assume that people take sides in a specific argument based on their Android-Apple loyalty.

[I don't distrust Apple's intent any more than I do any other profit-driven business (i.e. Google is included). Apple has many times owned up to their app rejection mistakes. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4454530]

If you're in the U.S. or many other countries you aren't in an actual democracy anyway. 1 vote != 1 vote.

I hate when people cling to this middle school notion that a republic is not a democracy. An indirect democracy is a form of democracy.

Do you understand the difference between proportional representation voting vs. non-PR voting?

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. " - Wikipedia

A republic isn't by default a democracy. Non-PR voting doesn't allow all citizens to have an equal say because their vote doesn't count if they vote for smaller political parties; At minimum it's not taking away seats from other parties, and not showing the genuine support for smaller parties -- and the bigger political parties know this and is why they want to keep the system this way.

I figured s/he was making a more nuanced point, e.g. the influence of money in politics, not the one you are implying. Id you are right, I recind my upvote!

I voted up your comment, but can you give me an example of a country that is a democracy by your definition? What is your definition?

[Jeez louis... why did this comment get downvoted? Shees!]

I read your comments where you mentioned Louis a couple of times before I realized you were probably saying (what I'd spell as) geez louise.

I kept clicking on the usernames of the people you replied to trying to find how you knew them as Louis. :)

ha! Thanks for setting me straight!

Only just saw this. I'm not sure specifically of any countries that are democratic by my definition. An issue that needs to be fixed, if they want to claim to be democratic, is to have proportional representation - so outcomes don't favour larger political groups; In Canada for example, there are many people who would vote for Green party don't, they vote Liberal say the Conservatives don't get more power. People don't feel safe voting for who'd they vote for because their vote won't count. See http://www.fairvote.ca/ ...

democracy is not as simple as 1 vote == 1 vote...

if you define "many other countries" as "all other democracies" your statement might be closer to the truth...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com