this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
538 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
59288 readers
4784 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As a privately owned company, they reserve the right to not support rapists.Stop advocating for a rapist.
I don't support rapists. That dude and people that want his app suck.
But everybody deserves to be able to run whatever software there want on their devices. And no company should be able to tell you what to do with things that you own.
Apple doesn't have to provide a platform for a rapist. They have that right. Do you not support freedom?
See, when it's your own home, you can claim that freedom, not to allow unwanted guests. Already if you have a public business, there are anti-discrimination rules. And if you own the whole goddamn city, if that was possible, you probably should have even more restrictions to imposing your will. Apple & Google together have a monopoly on smartphones, so it's like someone owned all the public squares in the country and decided certain things or people are banned. Legal, maybe, good, not really.
(If he does get convicted of rape, btw, then he will lose the right to live anywhere but a prison, and so he should also lose access to platforms like Apple. The problem is, that hasn't happened yet)
I support freedom for people. Apple is not a person.
Also "platforms" like the one apple now operates is akin to a "platform" like mail which has been determined to be a right. The thing is popular opinion and regulations have not yet caught up to this, but we have never had singular corporations that have widespread control the way tech companies do now. I believe we need to rectify this and make sure that companies that act as platforms for the public stop meddling with what the public does on those platforms.
Never platform rapists. Bye.
You also apparently never read or respond to the actual point other people are making.
Ironic, considering I'm still waiting to hear who determined mail to be right.
When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?
Dude nobody here is advocating for a rapist, period. We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.
As a privately owned (really, public) company, they do reserve those right. I believe that's a mistake, and that the constitution should protect free speech even on those platforms, even though it currently doesn't.
Edit: I don't mean they should make it easy to install Tate's app, mind you, just "possible". Just allowing app sideloading like Android, behind a bunch of warnings and hoops to jump, would be enough.
So what you're saying is the people at Apple have no freedom of speech, only rapists like Tate?
That's what you're saying, not me. Re-read my words, and if you actually want to have a civil and respectful conversation, I'll be here, but don't put words in my mouth
You are the one saying Apple shouldn't be allowed to use their "freedom of speech" to promote the things they want to promote.
Not exactly, they shouldn't be allowed to monopolize the market with unfair practices, should be required to allow app sideloading and/or 3rd party app stores and/or jailbreak without hacking (all things already true for Android btw). But until they do, then yes, their freedom should not be used to curtail other people's own freedom ("my freedom ends where yours begins" principle).
"People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences" is a garbage take on "freedom of speech". Even if you clarify it as "people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations", it is still a garbage take.
I believe in certain, limited restriction on freedom of speech, namely, using that freedom to curtail other people's freedom. That includes inciting violence or causing harm to others in any way, or yes, silencing them on one of the largest mobile platforms on the planet.
Protect freedom of speech- so allow child porn?