As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.
If one forces a person to to talk freely in a backyard instead of of the main street, one is censoring him since no one can hear him any more. That is happening when Apple pushes Alex Jones out of iTunes.
There really is no alternative to the current crop of tech giants. They literally have a monopoly on social media and are all extremely left-leaning, and increasingly hostile to any legal dissent. There are three scenarios I see playing out.
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.
> There really is no alternative to the current crop of tech giants
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'm not here to defend Jones, but I'd rather live in a world where people decide to avoid objectionable sources on their own, instead of some big brother or sister making that decision for me.
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.
I don't see this some "big brother" making decisions for you, but rather people at Apple, Youtube, etc making decisions about what objectionable content they want on their sites.
Having the basic right of internet access being treated as a public utility would help greatly with these issues, I agree. It would help with monopolies and issues with regulation.
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).
> So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?
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.
In my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
> Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?
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.
Except Apple receives tons of subsidies.[1] Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area. I can choose between Google or Apple. On the other hand, I can choose between Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sonic, or T-Mobile.
> Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area
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.
No, because ISPs are natural monopolies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly). The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for investing in the infrastructure. As such, there’s no easy way for competition to happen. (You would have to invest in a new infrastructure. Notice how you never have two cable companies or two DSL companies unless it’s one company selling under two names). The reason net neutrality is a big deal is because ISPs want their cake and eat it too. They like the protections of a natural monopoly but they don’t like the regulations that comes with it.
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.
The definition of an "internet service provider" is "a company that provides subscribers with access to the Internet". Almost every American has access to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile for their mobile internet. Should these companies be allowed to block content?
Apple isn't a public utility. It does not maintain iTunes as a public service, nor does it have any sort of monopoly over podcast distribution. It would be very strange to regulate it as such. (To be clear, internet access is not regarded as a public utility in the US, although I think I lean heavily in that direction.)
I can switch my ISP from Verizon to AT&T or Comcast with a single phone call tomorrow. Apple is far more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my area. Should we regulate Apple as a public utility?
Because AT&T is DSL, Comcast is cable, and Verizon is Fiber. If you want the fastest internet, you really don’t have a choice. And telling people “you have a choice, just switch to something slower” is not the same as “you have a choice, download the podcast elsewhere” because in the second case you get the same quality (lol I said quality when referring to infowars but I digress) podcast.
In Atlanta At&T, Google and Comcast all offer fiber. I don't believe we have Verizon here.
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.
There are multiple service providers that provide similar internet download speeds (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile). In your view, would it be okay for these companies to restrict content?
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.
As another reminder to everyone: free speech is a cherished value.
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.
> By not upholding these values, Apple is stating that they disagree with free speech
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]
> As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.
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.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
> 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.
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.
I think Apple is completely in the right here. They are enforcing a policy and if people don’t like that they don’t have to find podcasts through iTunes.
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.
I think Apple is completely in the wrong here. They are unnecessarily censoring. They should not censor, they must not censor. If this crook called Alex engaged in nonsense and hate-speech it should be the state's obligation to sue him.
Apple never pretended to have a curatorially-neutral stance in their ecosystem [0], and personally I’d prefer a private company burying content VS government criminalizing it any day of the week.
Although I'm happy seeing this kind of content removed, I'm really afraid of a future where private corporations have such a definitive influence of free speech. They set their own rules, and it's dangerous.
Alex Jones has the complete and total benefits of free speech - he can continue saying whatever he wants without any repercussions from the government. Apple making a decision like this isn't influencing free speech in the slightest.
Free speech is not a concept that only exists in your constitution. It's a mistake to bring up the First Amendment in these cases just as much as it is to think that Free Speech only refers to the First Amendment or repercussion from the Govt.
Unfortunately the concept of a principled stance seems to be a casualty of the current political polarization. It will come back to bite everyone on the left/progressive side of politics too because companies want to avoid being linked to any sort of controversy no matter what the position is and the left/progressives have lost any advantage in tech saviness.
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.
I've never listened to it, and in fact I have no idea who that guy is or what he talks about, except that he's supposedly a conspiracy theorist. For those of you who have, what made his show so objectionable (to Apple, anyway)?
Well, they're calling it hate speech. He doesn't talk about any particular ethnic group (not even Jews, despite what his detractors might say).
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.
> not even Jews, despite what his detractors might say
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.
(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.)
The source from Vox is Media Matters, which is literally a Democrat party source. I watched the video therein, and it's farily clear he's talking about the Emmanuels, not Jews as a whole.
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.
Parents of Sandy Hook victims are attacking Jones in a defamation lawsuit this year claiming they are harassed by people believing they are paid actors and the children did not even exist (or are still alive).
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.
If we are to go down this route, I should hope South Park Mexican is removed from Apple Music next. I am no fan of Alex Jones, but he traffics in conspiracies for entertainment value. He’s a shock jock for the tin foil hat crowd. That doesn’t excuse his ideas, but South Park Mexican is serving 45 years for sexually assaulting a 9 year old girl and his music is available right now on Apple Music — an actual, convicted child rapist can make royalties from Apple Music but Alex Jones gets banned? Jones is guilty of bad taste, SPM is guilty of raping a 9 year old girl.
Jones may intend his conspiracies to be for entertainment value, but that is not how many of his listeners and watchers take them. They take them as accurate news that they can and do rely on to guide behavior.
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.
Unsubstantiated! If you want to make such a major accusation then why not make an effort and take the trouble to provide at least some reason to believe. And no, this is absolutely not a defence of Alex Jones. It's a plea for constructive comment that might be helpful if one's trying to assess an issue.
He supports denial of reality, and he's reaching (part of) his audience on Apple's platform. They are within their rights to elect to remove him if he violates their terms of service.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other podcasts that support POTUS that haven't been removed.
Fox News is problematic, may be even extreme (Sean Hannity et al) but I would not put them in the same league as InfoWars. At least not as long as Shepard Smith gets airtime there.
If we are to complain about Hannity, then we have to include Maddow. Assuming we are trying to be intellectually consistent. She’s just as “extreme” but from the other side.
Classic false equivalence. You are right that Maddow is similar in style, but on a fact-to-fact based comparison, Hannity is some orders of magnitude more extreme.
The only thing rubbish here is blatant disregard for freedom of speech (Didn't really expect anything different from the fools here). There are platforms that are monopoly and they control free speech at this point.
But where does "partner" start? Is your cloud provider a partner to what you put online? Is Comcast partner to what you do online with your internet connection? Is your electricity company partner to what you do with your energy?
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".
We are living in a state of monopoly and EU laws agree with that. How can you then throw away freedom of speech! Just cause the goons on this forum are pissed, doesn't mean that guy should be banned. 48% of population voted for trump!
The definition of "freedom of speech" is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" (Oxford Dictionary). It does not say anything about the 1st Amendment.
The principle of free speech has to do with the systematic extermination of a widespread viewpoint (ex:Tienamen Square in China).
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.
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Apple as a private company is free to censor whatever they want. Not saying that they necessarily should but it is well within their rights.
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 point. I wonder if Apple will/has banned their app too? They did that to Gab.
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.
Go right ahead. And then watch as nobody uses them.
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.
I'm not really certain how to respond to this viewpoint of yours.
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.
You must spend a lot of time on the Peninsula where everything is always nice and sunny. Good for you.
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 )
That's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the ground.
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.
That's thanks to walled-gardens, advertising, and a lack of the average user's ability to use adequate replacement services. Quite frankly it's not likely for the average user to learn about DuckDuckGo, MillionShort, or Exalead. We're starting to see some small pushback against Alphabet's YouTube, but there aren't that many places that will ever have a viable alternative. Dailymotion's the closest - but they're not all that close.
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.
To each their own; ignorance is bliss I suppose. Me, I prefer my steaks rare and my information uncensored. We can co-exist of course; I respect your preference for well done and filtered content.
It’s something completely different, and invoking the term for unrelated concepts is bound to muddy the waters and doom the fight for actual net neutrality.
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.
I wish Silicon Valley believed in free speech instead of being jackbooted thugs. Let the individual decide if they want to consume media or not. I'm getting sick and tired of the outrage mobs trying to censor everything they personally find objectionable.
He should just put a .torrent up of the video after the show, have his followers upload it to YouTube, and have a form they can report the URL back so he can embed the video.
He won't get ad revenue, but he'll still get to his message out.
> It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our elected representatives to make the right choices
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.
Be nice to actually see what garbage is involved here so that I can determine for myself if I agree with you. Not possible though because it appears that Facebook did not specifically state which posts or videos violated their policies or in what way.
What should elected representatives do? You as a citizen have the right to not consume Alex Jones content. Apple has a right to ban it. The government does not have the right to be involved at all unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment.
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.
> unless we are to simply ignore the first amendment
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.
Probably be down-voted for this, but I find it funny, lots of people here support Apple. No matter how trash the podcast author was, I'd imagine there'd be an outrage if this were a move by Google.
I'm not a fan of either, but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the corporate in question.
All the people here supporting Apple's decision with an argument "it's a private company, their rules" are the same people moaning when Apple, Google, Facebook or others do the same thing that affects them.
This seems like a pretty baseless assertion, though I'm sure it feels good to believe. However, if there was something more substantial that made you say it, I wish you'd elaborate.
