The reality is one countries legal process is another countries anti-human rights spyware. The efforts by EU and the US to force Apple to provide backdoors become attack points by Russia, Venezuela, China, Phillipenes, etc., spyware on dissents.
This reinforces Apple’s concerns that the “end justifies the means” mentality that permeates justice systems in all countries.
That exaclty why owning guns and other means of defending yourself from the corrupt elements that might usurp power within the govt should be illegal.... There is no reason to fear your corrupt govt... And the freedom of speech is not needed either, as it creates instabilities and upsets people. /s
too bad Apple does not support freedom of speech, so it is not in the position to criticize govts suppressing freedoms.
Bullshit. I can use Safari to visit any website I wish. Even pornography or racist hate-filled sites. No censorship at all on the part of Apple.
Theres no law that says Apple has to host any content on their privately owned servers/App Store. They are free to restrict content as they see fit.
It does make me shake my head sometimes, though. One of my favourite scenes in a Family Guy episode is a squirrel flipping off a dog stuck inside the house. On the DVD, we see the squirrel giving him the finger. The version I bought on the iTunes store has the squirrel's hand blurred out. It's unnecessary and utterly neuters the joke. What's next, Blockbuster-style movie censoring?
Someone might get offended... and what’s then? /s Apple was simply trying to appease the “hippie” crowd. It is a matter of time, until they start contradicting themsleves in some very clear and ridiculous way... It is impossible to appease the investors and the general public at the same time. I am fine with the company doing either, but thry cant do both, without contradicting themselves.
The reality is one countries legal process is another countries anti-human rights spyware. The efforts by EU and the US to force Apple to provide backdoors become attack points by Russia, Venezuela, China, Phillipenes, etc., spyware on dissents.
This reinforces Apple’s concerns that the “end justifies the means” mentality that permeates justice systems in all countries.
That exaclty why owning guns and other means of defending yourself from the corrupt elements that might usurp power within the govt should be illegal.... There is no reason to fear your corrupt govt... And the freedom of speech is not needed either, as it creates instabilities and upsets people. /s
too bad Apple does not support freedom of speech, so it is not in the position to criticize govts suppressing freedoms.
Bullshit. I can use Safari to visit any website I wish. Even pornography or racist hate-filled sites. No censorship at all on the part of Apple.
Theres no law that says Apple has to host any content on their privately owned servers/App Store. They are free to restrict content as they see fit.
Plus, censorship by a company is not an impingement of free speech. They are two different things.
The reality is one countries legal process is another countries anti-human rights spyware. The efforts by EU and the US to force Apple to provide backdoors become attack points by Russia, Venezuela, China, Phillipenes, etc., spyware on dissents.
This reinforces Apple’s concerns that the “end justifies the means” mentality that permeates justice systems in all countries.
That exaclty why owning guns and other means of defending yourself from the corrupt elements that might usurp power within the govt should be illegal.... There is no reason to fear your corrupt govt... And the freedom of speech is not needed either, as it creates instabilities and upsets people. /s
too bad Apple does not support freedom of speech, so it is not in the position to criticize govts suppressing freedoms.
Bullshit. I can use Safari to visit any website I wish. Even pornography or racist hate-filled sites. No censorship at all on the part of Apple.
Theres no law that says Apple has to host any content on their privately owned servers/App Store. They are free to restrict content as they see fit.
Ah but Apple does not allow non-Apple App Store apps like you can get on the Mac... There is some legal challenge about this in progress... Programming Code is free speech, but Apple does restrict what code can be used on devices they sell... So one could argue Apple restricts free speech.
Apple is most certainly anti free speech. Once you put arbitrary restrictions on what can be had on the App Store and using the word “hate” as ajustification you no longer have free speech. I fact Apple isn’t any better than many third world dictatorships in this regard.
The bigger problem as I see it is that Apples behavior with respect to censorship feeds the wrong elements in society. Frankly I’m not sure how Apple can be so stupid in this regard but hate flourishes when a we against they division is maintained.
Please educate yourself. Google is right there at your fingertips. You can know the definition of free speech if only you have the desire to.
The reality is one countries legal process is another countries anti-human rights spyware. The efforts by EU and the US to force Apple to provide backdoors become attack points by Russia, Venezuela, China, Phillipenes, etc., spyware on dissents.
This reinforces Apple’s concerns that the “end justifies the means” mentality that permeates justice systems in all countries.
That exaclty why owning guns and other means of defending yourself from the corrupt elements that might usurp power within the govt should be illegal.... There is no reason to fear your corrupt govt... And the freedom of speech is not needed either, as it creates instabilities and upsets people. /s
too bad Apple does not support freedom of speech, so it is not in the position to criticize govts suppressing freedoms.
Bullshit. I can use Safari to visit any website I wish. Even pornography or racist hate-filled sites. No censorship at all on the part of Apple.
Theres no law that says Apple has to host any content on their privately owned servers/App Store. They are free to restrict content as they see fit.
Ah but Apple does not allow non-Apple App Store apps like you can get on the Mac... There is some legal challenge about this in progress... Programming Code is free speech, but Apple does restrict what code can be used on devices they sell... So one could argue Apple restricts free speech.
Apple is most certainly anti free speech. Once you put arbitrary restrictions on what can be had on the App Store and using the word “hate” as ajustification you no longer have free speech. I fact Apple isn’t any better than many third world dictatorships in this regard.
The bigger problem as I see it is that Apples behavior with respect to censorship feeds the wrong elements in society. Frankly I’m not sure how Apple can be so stupid in this regard but hate flourishes when a we against they division is maintained.
You’re babbling. Maybe proofread and pay attention to spelling.
Edit: On re-reading, I finally could make out what you’re saying in that last sentence. It’s okay to use hyphens when you want to use a phrase as a single modifier, or adjective — “when a we-against-they division is maintained.” But it should be “we-against-them” because “against” requires “they” to be in the objective case — “them.”
Anyway, you’re still full of it, because the concept of free speech doesn’t apply to a private publisher or distributor restricting what content they wish to traffic in.
Comments
Apple was simply trying to appease the “hippie” crowd. It is a matter of time, until they start contradicting themsleves in some very clear and ridiculous way... It is impossible to appease the investors and the general public at the same time. I am fine with the company doing either, but thry cant do both, without contradicting themselves.
Edit: On re-reading, I finally could make out what you’re saying in that last sentence. It’s okay to use hyphens when you want to use a phrase as a single modifier, or adjective — “when a we-against-they division is maintained.” But it should be “we-against-them” because “against” requires “they” to be in the objective case — “them.”
Anyway, you’re still full of it, because the concept of free speech doesn’t apply to a private publisher or distributor restricting what content they wish to traffic in.