Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
Nope. 230 is clear about this.
How does section 230 apply to Belarus?
Because there is no platform/publisher line in Belarus, so OP couldn't have been talking about it as it applies there.
Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
Nope. 230 is clear about this.
How does section 230 apply to Belarus?
Because there is no platform/publisher line in Belarus, so OP couldn't have been talking about it as it applies there.
I'm sure Belarusians are aware of the concepts of publisher and platform. I don't see how it matters how it applies anywhere else other than Belarus given that this story is entirely about Belarus.
Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
Nope. 230 is clear about this.
How does section 230 apply to Belarus?
Because there is no platform/publisher line in Belarus, so OP couldn't have been talking about it as it applies there.
I'm sure Belarusians are aware of the concepts of publisher and platform. I don't see how it matters how it applies anywhere else other than Belarus given that this story is entirely about Belarus.
I don't see where the "crossed the line from platform to publisher" from the OP has any bearing on a story about Belarus, given that the only country that has that legal definition is the US -- hence my comment including 230 about it.
22july2013 said: Yes, we know that. Moreover, there's no such right in Belarus. But the article covers two issues: (1) the suppression of apps within Belarus, and (2) Apple preventing developers from telling anyone why Apple is rejecting their apps.
Telling "anyone"? No. They're free to tell people anything they want about rejections etc. outside of the app itself. That's a standard approach in the software business and also the retail business. Apple is not the only company that does that. Imagine walking into a grocery store and seeing signs everywhere about products that were removed from the shelves or not allowed to be sold in the store. It's kind of ridiculous to expect that to be allowed in a business environment.
That's an interesting claim, but it contradicts the story which says, more than once, "In a Telegram post on Oct. 9, Durov points to policies that disallow developers from explaining App Store guidelines to customers." Notice it does not say "in the app itself". It says "explain" period.
"Representatives of the American company Apple denied the data on the requirements to remove Telegram channels about Belarus. RIA Novosti reports . The company said that they only turned to the Telegram administration with a request to take immediate action to delete personal data posted without the consent of specific individuals. Apple clarified that such requirements arose against the background of complaints from users. So, people said that their personal information was disclosed in Telegram channels. Apple representatives added that the service team did not object and promised to check the information received, and after investigation, give answers."
In other words, this wasn't about the App Store at all. Someone complained to Apple that their personal information was available via this app without their consent and Apple reached out to the creator of the App to seek deletion of this information. Seems pretty reasonable and harmless--unless the Apple representative included an "or else" that isn't acknowledged by Apple.
Perhaps we should be careful to take every tweet or complaint at face value. Many times people completely mischaracterize what happened to make their case more compelling.
This is how these "dramas" become mainstream, because people DON'T READ! And the CEO of Telegram just outed himself as another one of those "Jump on the anti-Apple bandwagon" goons because he now smells publicity and money out of this.
I knew there was more to this, hence kept reading, and glad to see you posted this before I did, saved me some time
Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
Nope. 230 is clear about this.
How does section 230 apply to Belarus?
Because there is no platform/publisher line in Belarus, so OP couldn't have been talking about it as it applies there.
I'm sure Belarusians are aware of the concepts of publisher and platform. I don't see how it matters how it applies anywhere else other than Belarus given that this story is entirely about Belarus.
I don't see where the "crossed the line from platform to publisher" from the OP has any bearing on a story about Belarus, given that the only country that has that legal definition is the US -- hence my comment including 230 about it.
The Publisher / Platform issue is irrelevant. Apple is neither. They sold an app, end of story. If I bought am knife from Target and killed someone, Target would not be culpable. If I used MS Word to write a threatening note, Microsoft wouldn’t be culpable. Apple sold an app written by someone else. That app operates outside of Apple in every way. Apple neither has any responsibility to oversee the content generated on that App, nor any right to say what people do on that App. Apple needs to learn they cannot control everything. They seem to have forgotten that the AppStore is a walled garden, iOS isn’t.
In many ways this story feels similar to this week's hot story that Twitter has shut down the President's campaign's Twitter account for linking to a NY Post story that Twitter thinks contains information that has been obtained illegally.
As brutal as the regime is, as despicable as doxxing is, it masks the core question. Why is this any of Apple's business? AFAIK the posts don't go through Apple's servers. It is a tool that, once the app is sold, has no contact with Apple or the AppStore. Others have compared it to Safari. You can do things with Safari that Apple would not approve of. Same goes for Twitter and Mail. Netflix has content that would not pass muster if pitched to AppleTV+. Apple doesn't hassle them because all of the content is outside of Apple's system. Why is Telegram any different? This reminds me of when Apple landed on Tumblr because of some content they did not like. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Apple needs to stop trying to micromanage other people's platforms. They are only shooting themselves in the foot.
Freedom of the press applies only against government, not private entities such as Apple. Further it protects only owners of presses, not content contributors.
The freedom of the press referred to in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a right to use technology to spread one's speech more widely, not a special right enjoyed by the press as a profession or industry. Whether someone acts as a member of 'the press' - whatever that would mean - they enjoy the same protections under the First Amendment. That's true both as a matter of original understanding and as a matter of modern prevailing interpretation.
It's the press as a technology, not the press as an industry, that is protected by the First Amendment.
Comments
I knew there was more to this, hence kept reading, and glad to see you posted this before I did, saved me some time
If I bought am knife from Target and killed someone, Target would not be culpable.
If I used MS Word to write a threatening note, Microsoft wouldn’t be culpable.
Apple sold an app written by someone else. That app operates outside of Apple in every way. Apple neither has any responsibility to oversee the content generated on that App, nor any right to say what people do on that App.
Apple needs to learn they cannot control everything. They seem to have forgotten that the AppStore is a walled garden, iOS isn’t.
It's the press as a technology, not the press as an industry, that is protected by the First Amendment.