Yeah, accidental billionaire, happens all the time. Get a clue will you. The guy's a master salesman. You don't become a billionaire by being lucky. It just doesn't happen.
sure it can. being in the right place at the right time is certainly one way to get rich. not every person who's made it rich is solely responsible for if due to merit alone, plenty lucked out.
Mark Cuban's last thought before this set of tweets: "hmmm...maybe there's a way for me to snatch a minute of attention away from Trump at the next billionaires' luncheon. Think Mark! Think! What target is guaranteed to get me...wait...yes,of course!"
Cuban knows why—it would be against Apple’s interest to alienate a whole platform & is just trying to stir up controversy where there is none. So, even if his position was valid, it would be overlooked, like Apple letting Playboy on, but not other apps with naked women in them.
But as others have said, where SoNet’s are concerned, user generated content platforms aren’t subject to censorship & in effect Apple wouldn’t be censoring Twitter, but censoring the people that use it. Plus it has ways to block all that anyway.
You’d think someone who presented himself as tech savvy would understand all of this. So, either he’s out of touch with the current state of the web and doesn’t fully grasp what SoNets are or has an interest is trashing Apple & Twitter. Either way, he’s not to be trusted.
How is it that every commenter here immediately saw the fallacy of Cuban's rant, yet Cuban doesn't? This guy is either being deliberately obtuse (Fandroid, perhaps) or he's the least intelligent billionaire who ever lived. Hmm. Which is worse, I wonder?
Cuban posted a follow-up tweet on Friday, saying, "People missed my point yesterday. The point is that Apple IS A CENSOR for their apps. I'm curious why they have chosen not to censor twitter."
Apple doesn't (and realistically, can't) censor content delivery apps, like Safari, YouTube, etc. None of that is Apple's responsibility. Mark didn't have a point to begin with. If billionaires could forward their nonsensical industry-specific tech commentary to their PR people *before* they vomit it all over social media, that'd be great.
I have tremendous respect for Cuban and what he's accomplished. He has certainly earned the right to comment on the tech world.
I also realize that Twitter usage (through DM) stunts any ability to advance the app he champions, Cyber Dust. If you're on Twitter all the time, it is simple to send a DM to someone in lieu of a text. CD is a replacement for text messages, but self-destruct after 30 seconds, leaving no trail of evidence.
Cuban is an owner of CD, which hasn't exactly set the app world on fire, so disrupting Twitter might be a business strategy. I don't see his comments as random, but rather suspect there is an over-arching plan.
I don't see any material difference between an app that contains offensive material and an app that allows users to publicly post offensive material. Why does Apple allow one and not the other?
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I don't see any material difference between an app that contains offensive material and an app that allows users to publicly post offensive material. Why does Apple allow one and not the other?
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I'm pretty sure Twitter has a web site.
You don't see a difference? Really? Ok, if I buy an app and when I launch it it says,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" I would think that Apple should reconsider hosting an app that insults me for no reason. On the other hand if I pick up my iPhone and open the iMessage app and one of my friends has sent me the message,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" and I blamed apple, well, I would be a dummy.
Anyone who calls another person or thing "Un-American" might want to examine their definition of "American", examine the actual history of the nation (including its current sociopolitical behavior) and question why they think they're the authority on what is or is not "American" (as an adjective).
I generally find suspect any person throwing that term around.
As for the core subject of this article, I think Apple has demonstrated hypocrisy plenty in this realm. I think the comparison is justified. The question is whether or not the owners of the relevant social networking products feel like filtering those products. Typically, corporations like to play hands-off in terms of user-generated content. Only when it negatively impacts the company public image or threaten subscriber numbers do they step in. Facebook needs as much product as possible (users) to sell to their real customers (marketing/advertising agencies). Filtering content keeps the majority of the user base more comfortable.
Censorship isn't relevant to private services. Even publicly owned, a business doesn't run afoul of any censorship law by filtering its content or blocking things it deems objectionable. Anyone throwing the word "censorship" and "unamerican" at the filtering of objectionable content (regardless of who defines what it is), performed by a non-governmental entity, doesn't understand that censorship isn't illegal or "antithetical to America" in this context (plenty of such violation is constantly going on by the national security agencies and few people object because they're propagandized into thinking "this is the cost for [x]").
If you want to take a business entity to task over serious information manipulation, why not take aim at the news services. Few, if any, are about providing unbiased and balanced news any more. It's all about selling commercial slots. Some agencies are even institutionally biased toward a special interest (most notable seems to be Fox News but not the only one).
Apple is not itself a social network or a news agency. The App Store is not a forum for speech. I think Apple attitudes on what's objectionable are bizarre and inconsistent, and clearly biased toward popular and "ubiquitous services" like Twitter, but I don't see this specific example (App Store review inconsistency) as a point for social activism over censorship. Should Apple be more transparent and consistent? Probably. Does it negatively impact society? I doubt it, at this time. Makes me think the objection in this context is fueled more by entrepreneurs being angry over their sales opportunities being frustrated than anything like free speech protection (which is irrelevant to the App Store).
I don't see any material difference between an app that contains offensive material and an app that allows users to publicly post offensive material. Why does Apple allow one and not the other?
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I'm pretty sure Twitter has a web site.
You don't see a difference? Really? Ok, if I buy an app and when I launch it it says,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" I would think that Apple should reconsider hosting an app that insults me for no reason. On the other hand if I pick up my iPhone and open the iMessage app and one of my friends has sent me the message,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" and I blamed apple, well, I would be a dummy.
iMessage 1) is not on the app store, 2) does not allow a user to publicly post offensive material, it's a private messaging service.
I don't see any material difference between an app that contains offensive material and an app that allows users to publicly post offensive material. Why does Apple allow one and not the other?
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I'm pretty sure Twitter has a web site.
You don't see a difference? Really? Ok, if I buy an app and when I launch it it says,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" I would think that Apple should reconsider hosting an app that insults me for no reason. On the other hand if I pick up my iPhone and open the iMessage app and one of my friends has sent me the message,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" and I blamed apple, well, I would be a dummy.
iMessage 1) is not on the app store, 2) does not allow a user to publicly post offensive material, it's a private messaging service.
Same goes for Twitter. Apple shouldn't be held responsible for a persons speech on another companies platform.
I'd rather Twitter be left alone. They're the only decent social media platform.
Twitter has become more like an Anti-social network than a social one. It would be nice for it to be removed but frankly it is a lot of wishful thinking.
Jusy say No to all the Social Media networks. They are addictive and a menace to many innocent people. You won't find me on any of them. If there are accounts purporting to be me then they are fake. Bitter? Yes. I have been the subject of a Facebook hate campaign sadly they were targetting someone else with the same name as me. Took me ages to get it sorted out. Mind you, the other person was a complete shit.
I don't see any material difference between an app that contains offensive material and an app that allows users to publicly post offensive material. Why does Apple allow one and not the other?
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I'm pretty sure Twitter has a web site.
You don't see a difference? Really? Ok, if I buy an app and when I launch it it says,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" I would think that Apple should reconsider hosting an app that insults me for no reason. On the other hand if I pick up my iPhone and open the iMessage app and one of my friends has sent me the message,"hey dummy, I had your mom last night and you smell like poop" and I blamed apple, well, I would be a dummy.
iMessage 1) is not on the app store, 2) does not allow a user to publicly post offensive material, it's a private messaging service.
Same goes for Twitter. Apple shouldn't be held responsible for a persons speech on another companies platform.
???
Neither of the things I said apply to Twitter.
I agree that Apple aren't responsible for anyone else's speech, I don't think anyone is claiming that they are. What they are responsible for is their own rule book, and applying it consistently, or else face a lack of confidence in their ability to administer the App Store.
seems to me there is the 'thin end of the wedge" principle in operation. If twitter is banned then next is the AI app because there is a lot offensive android morons posting on that. While we are at it why not ban all web browsers, IRC, usenet, Skype, whats app, hangouts because people write offensive material there too. That should deal with it. No internet therefore no more offensive material. oh that's right thats what they do in China!
Comments
Apple doesn't (and realistically, can't) censor content delivery apps, like Safari, YouTube, etc. None of that is Apple's responsibility.
Mark didn't have a point to begin with.
If billionaires could forward their nonsensical industry-specific tech commentary to their PR people *before* they vomit it all over social media, that'd be great.
I also realize that Twitter usage (through DM) stunts any ability to advance the app he champions, Cyber Dust. If you're on Twitter all the time, it is simple to send a DM to someone in lieu of a text. CD is a replacement for text messages, but self-destruct after 30 seconds, leaving no trail of evidence.
Cuban is an owner of CD, which hasn't exactly set the app world on fire, so disrupting Twitter might be a business strategy. I don't see his comments as random, but rather suspect there is an over-arching plan.
I can't remember if it was officially stated, but in the early days on the App Store the approach was said to be that apps were at Apple's pleasure, and content that didn't meet Apple's approval could be delivered via the web And accessed via Safari.
I'm pretty sure Twitter has a web site.
I generally find suspect any person throwing that term around.
As for the core subject of this article, I think Apple has demonstrated hypocrisy plenty in this realm. I think the comparison is justified. The question is whether or not the owners of the relevant social networking products feel like filtering those products. Typically, corporations like to play hands-off in terms of user-generated content. Only when it negatively impacts the company public image or threaten subscriber numbers do they step in. Facebook needs as much product as possible (users) to sell to their real customers (marketing/advertising agencies). Filtering content keeps the majority of the user base more comfortable.
Censorship isn't relevant to private services. Even publicly owned, a business doesn't run afoul of any censorship law by filtering its content or blocking things it deems objectionable. Anyone throwing the word "censorship" and "unamerican" at the filtering of objectionable content (regardless of who defines what it is), performed by a non-governmental entity, doesn't understand that censorship isn't illegal or "antithetical to America" in this context (plenty of such violation is constantly going on by the national security agencies and few people object because they're propagandized into thinking "this is the cost for [x]").
If you want to take a business entity to task over serious information manipulation, why not take aim at the news services. Few, if any, are about providing unbiased and balanced news any more. It's all about selling commercial slots. Some agencies are even institutionally biased toward a special interest (most notable seems to be Fox News but not the only one).
Apple is not itself a social network or a news agency. The App Store is not a forum for speech. I think Apple attitudes on what's objectionable are bizarre and inconsistent, and clearly biased toward popular and "ubiquitous services" like Twitter, but I don't see this specific example (App Store review inconsistency) as a point for social activism over censorship. Should Apple be more transparent and consistent? Probably. Does it negatively impact society? I doubt it, at this time. Makes me think the objection in this context is fueled more by entrepreneurs being angry over their sales opportunities being frustrated than anything like free speech protection (which is irrelevant to the App Store).
It would be nice for it to be removed but frankly it is a lot of wishful thinking.
Jusy say No to all the Social Media networks. They are addictive and a menace to many innocent people.
You won't find me on any of them. If there are accounts purporting to be me then they are fake.
Bitter? Yes. I have been the subject of a Facebook hate campaign sadly they were targetting someone else with the same name as me. Took me ages to get it sorted out. Mind you, the other person was a complete shit.
Neither of the things I said apply to Twitter.
I agree that Apple aren't responsible for anyone else's speech, I don't think anyone is claiming that they are. What they are responsible for is their own rule book, and applying it consistently, or else face a lack of confidence in their ability to administer the App Store.