Apple saved music with iTunes because the ripping of music was a known illegal activity. And the price worked out by Steve Jobs was a good price. Ninety nine cents per song made sense versus being forced to buy full albums. Win/win for customers and artists.
Magazines are so lame these days they can't be given away. And that is when they do it legally online. Most are political and their politics is very unattractive. So who wants lame politics dressed up in a fancy graphical cover or with the NYT logo? And Apple is likely to exclude political opinions it finds unacceptable, which means it will exclude what half the population wants. I don't think Apple will exhibit a hearty appreciation of the wide open expression of ideas from across the spectrum. More likely it will be like Facebook and Twitter which censor voices that don't fit the liberal template. If Apple does that with Apple News it will not be a big success or even a good product.
Wrong: File sharing wasn’t initially regarded as illegal. Also, when iTunes opened the labels were already trying to sell their songs on new forms of physical media and digital through stores from a Microsoft, Sony and on their own.
Also, lots of magazines have great content that many people don’t see because they spend their free time scrolling through the Facebook feed of radical trash and outrage mongering.
Apple doesn’t exclude political opinions. Voices espousing hatred and violence are not open expressions from across the spectrum. The are terrorism and deserve to be silenced.
And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism.
I'm not sure how old you are or what your perspective is on the events of 20 years ago, but it's different than mine. By the time Apple started selling music through iTunes, file sharing was known to be illegal and widespread. I went back and looked up some dates....Metallica sued Napster in March of 2000. Others followed. After being sued by the RIAA, Napster was shut down by court order in early 2001. There were some attempts by the music industry to start selling online, but none reached even close to critical mass. Ripping CD's was still frowned upon by the RIAA, though there wasn't much they could do about it (save Sony's pathetic attempt to prevent it). In 2003, the iTunes Music Store debuted. It was enormously successful because there was a market for reasonably priced, legal downloads. The labels were way, way behind on this, and Apple filled the gap quickly.
Magazines are dead. Say it with me.
Apple absolutely excludes political opinions. Every platform does. And sorry, but "hatred" (however that's defined) and "violence" are not terrorism and would be protected speech were it not for it being a private platform. Advocating or inciting violence (directly) is illegal. "Hate speech" is not. You're going down a very dangerous road here when you advocate for silencing people. Very dangerous.
Quote: "And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism."
Oh boy. First, Facebook and Twitter's discrimination against conservative views is well established and unquestionable. They do not apply the same standards to all users of their platform. They ban and shadow ban conservatives routinely while ignoring blatant violations of their rules by Leftists. Secondly, I don't see how they are "recruiting" anyone into anything. Any "right wing hate and rage" (like actual Nazis and KKK members for example) is exceptionally small, not just on social media but in the nation. The KKK is estimated to have fewer than 3,600 members nationwide. Third, Russia? Are you kidding? The Russians spent $100,000 in Facebook ads both before and after the 2016 election, supporting and opposing both parties' nominees. The candidates and associated groups spent $2 billion. Their goal was to sow chaos, and they succeeded. If you actually think the Russians are running around spreading "right wing hate and rage," you might want to check your closet for monsters.
Kentfromohio said: I don't know of a single person who believes the climate does not change. It has always changed. Conservatives definitely believe this. We are aware of the Ice Age. The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. All pre-industrial. Imagine that. However, you do see Democrats and MSNBC eggheads claiming that only man can change the climate. Pure BS.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that "only man can change the climate" except in the kind of argument you just made.
The Current science is something like 99.9999% (might be more 9s) that the current climate shift is caused by humans.
Kentfromohio said: I don't know of a single person who believes the climate does not change. It has always changed. Conservatives definitely believe this. We are aware of the Ice Age. The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period. All pre-industrial. Imagine that. However, you do see Democrats and MSNBC eggheads claiming that only man can change the climate. Pure BS.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody suggest that "only man can change the climate" except in the kind of argument you just made.
The Current science is something like 99.9999% (might be more 9s) that the current climate shift is caused by humans.
Your quote on "the current science" is pure ignorance. If there was such exact science then these scientists could predict every days weather and the exact temperatures in the coming years. In fact, the global warming baloney mongers, like you, have NEVER been able to accurately predict anything. It is pure bunk. For real climate science see Fred Singer or Roy Spencer. They are two real scientists who know climate issues.
I'm not sure how old you are or what your perspective is on the events of 20 years ago, but it's different than mine. By the time Apple started selling music through iTunes, file sharing was known to be illegal and widespread. I went back and looked up some dates....
I don't know what your point is. Filesharing was quite clearly common and widespread when iPod appeared. Kent popped up and began his usual screed of Fox & Friends talking points, starting with his search results that discovered a file sharing case against a woman in 2006.
I pointed out that a lot changed between 2001 and 2006. And then you come back ignoring everything so you can start screaming about liberals and how Facebooks isn't giving enough airtime to white supremacists and neo nazis.
Nobody is out here waiting for 12 paragraphs of rage from some old dude trying to convince them that they should also reject science and start believing whatever Fox and Friends is telling them to believe today. So all ten of you, just stop.
Comment on the issues raised in the article. "Fake news" is garbage content generated to sell ads or sell opinions. It is not whatever some fascist dictator or his state news says it is. All of your collective comments--every one of which comes from Fox and Friends, by the way--are harebrained John Birch Society nuttery that nobody on AI wants to hear you rant about. So please stop.
Kentfromohio said: Your comment has no place on any serious service. Science is about argument and seeking truth. It is never about silencing debate. Except when it has been hijacked by fake scientists. If you are too weak to read articles with different viewpoints, then that is your problem. Maybe you should develop a thicker skin.
Exactly... while it doesn't absolutely mean something is up (anyone can get defensive at times), it should absolutely send up a big red flag.
I've seen this done in several different fields now and in institutions. In the areas where it has happened where I have some expertise, it has always been when a paradigm was about to be tipped, and those in power wanted to shut down the dissent. Or, there can be other reasons like greed, or power itself.
Kentfromohio said: For the record, I don't think comments like the above, which are vile and pure hate, should be censored. We can learn about what makes up each political faction by reading what they write. And we can and should draw conclusions. This type of hate is common today and it is most common on one side of the debate. Frequently, those with such hate have TOLERANCE bumper stickers on their cars. That is always ironic.
Ironic for those who are just ignorant (and doing what others around them are doing without understanding). But, for those in the know, it is a calculated power-play (especially all the redefinition of terms, strong appeals to emotion, shutting down any opposing ideas from being expressed, etc.).
Rayer said: Except it pretty much is. You don't see Democrats or non-Fox stations in droves claiming that climate change isn't real.
That's actually not the claim. Same for everything from vaccination to Intelligent Design. BTW, that's another tell of either ignorance or dishonesty, when one side of a debate has to straw-man the other side, or can't seem to state what the opposing position is... or especially purposely distorts it to make it look silly.
SpamSandwich said: It’s impossible to understand an opposing view if one literally cannot think the same way.
That's the other possibility from what I said in response to Rayer above... and it's truly scary. One of the podcasts I listen to jokes about 'Dimension A' and 'Dimension B'. In other words, the sides have deluded themselves to the point that they can't even put themselves in the mode of thinking of the other for the purpose of understanding and discussion. They are just locked into their own views and parrot/emote. I'm still hoping there are enough people left who aren't locked into this behavior, but I do wonder.
Reading down the comments here is a good example of why News+ won't make much difference. So many people only view as "true" what they already believe. So many people view those with a different point of view as beneath contempt. ... But I saw that coming. It's why I left 12 years ago.
I hear you. I think it would pretty much take a miracle at this point to save the USA (or most of the 'West' for that matter). I'm not sure where you moved, but I don't think escape will be that easy. It's going to impact the world when it crashes (and I think it will be within my lifetime). But, you're absolutely right that this has been coming for quite some time... I just think it has been accelerating faster than people who follow culture (like myself) would have imagined.
I'm not sure what your particular worldview is, but this quote comes to mind: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
From my own background, I've seen what happens when postmodern ideas are unleashed on an academic discipline... which started quite a long time ago in religious studies (I think long before it hit politics and government). It won't survive it.
sdw2001 said: Secondly, I don't see how they are "recruiting" anyone into anything. Any "right wing hate and rage" (like actual Nazis and KKK members for example) is exceptionally small, not just on social media but in the nation. The KKK is estimated to have fewer than 3,600 members nationwide.
More like the 'left' is driving people there, if anything. But, what so many seem to miss (and it's purposeful at the political and MSM level), is that there is a huge difference between racist movements and nationalistic movements, especially in the light of globalist movements.
What I've seen (and been told) is that the younger people are flocking to nationalist movements, not so much as some kind of love of the nation, but in reaction to the effects of globalism and the ideological warfare coming from the left. The left seems hellbent on destroying society, and then trying to pick up the pieces and gain control.
mknelson said: The Current science is something like 99.9999% (might be more 9s) that the current climate shift is caused by humans.
Total BS. Where did you get that idea from? Let me guess, Al Gore, Bill Nye, and NBC? There is a large consensus (much less than your figure above) that humans have caused some part of the change. The rest is based off computer models, where the alarmists and MSM play off the really scary end of the projections.
Here's the thing, though. You might also want to study the impacts (especially on the world's poorest), of the various proposed reactions. Whether the alarmists are right or not, several of the proposed reactions have outcomes I have to fight against (out of a basic sense of decency), either way.
And, then there are the $Trillions that will be changing hands in the economies of the world that won't have much of any impact on the climate, anyway.
corrections said: ... start screaming about liberals and how Facebooks isn't giving enough airtime to white supremacists and neo nazis.
If it were just them, I wouldn't be quite so worried. There are a heck of a lot more who are being down-ranked to de-platformed. And, it is about ideology, not hate or violence.
corrections said: "Fake news" is garbage content generated to sell ads or sell opinions. It is not whatever some fascist dictator or his state news says it is. All of your collective comments--every one of which comes from Fox and Friends, by the way ...
I don't watch Fox and Friends. I only hear a clip from time to time from Fox when it is being critiqued by the sources I do follow. re: 'fake news' - I somewhat agree the term has been broadened from the original meaning. Yes, it was a pretty specific thing once upon a time. Propaganda, opinion, distortion, misinformation campaign, etc. would probably be better terms than fake news.
(As an aside... that's another one where the MSM twisted Trump, and I think a lot of the MSM people actually believe it now. The whole 'enemy of the people' thing. Trump said that fake news is the enemy of the people. Then another time, I think he called CNN fake news. They put 2+2 together, self-identified, and have been running with it since. So, I have a good chuckle when I hear journalists saying 'Trump said we are the enemy of the people.' Must be projection or something, LOL.)
One challenge with every modern service is personalisation. There can’t be a curator for every user. So there will also be algorithms that will help you see what you wish. Although let’s stop right there. “To see what I wish”.. THAT is the issue we/ they should be fighting. That’s dangerous anyways, and it’s leading to polarisation and a lot of the the trouble we are seeing today. I wish Apple News+ was 100% curated, with fact checks on everything, taking responsibility in presenting a multifaceted news flow, and not falling for cheap tricks, trends and paid manipulation. And I wish it was available world wide, without geographically tailored content, until regional content was in place. I’d much prefer to use global news than news from the little region where I live anyways.
(As an aside... that's another one where the MSM twisted Trump, and I think a lot of the MSM people actually believe it now. The whole 'enemy of the people' thing. Trump said that fake news is the enemy of the people. Then another time, I think he called CNN fake news. They put 2+2 together, self-identified, and have been running with it since. So, I have a good chuckle when I hear journalists saying 'Trump said we are the enemy of the people.' Must be projection or something, LOL.)
This is absolutely a lie.
Trump has repeatedly characterized media and journalists as an enemy. Watch any of his bizarre campaign-rallies where he glorifies violence against journalists and whips up his white supremacist fascist cult base to chant whatever insanity he likes. He does it for the same reason any other dictator unbounded by law does: to weaken the rule of law and cement himself as an emperor. He has completely unmasked the "conservative" movement. It was never about low taxes and minimal government. It was always about seizing power and hurting women and minorities in the cruelest ways possible.
You try to put a false veneer of normalcy on Trump but he's not "misunderstood." He's very clear about what he's doing, and nobody is stupid enough to need you to interpret anything. And the fact that you're willing to lie about something so obvious says a lot about everything else you say.
I've been using Apple News since the day it came out. Apart from the fact that the News app crashes every two minutes, my main concern is that the curation acts as a censoring of my news. If Apple had a flag that lets me turn curation on and off, I'd be happy and I'd probably stick with the service forever. But I think Apple feels it is their moral duty to decide which news we get. It was just a couple of weeks ago an AppleInsider story spoke about Apple's moral duties: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/24/designers-have-social-duties-beyond-a-products-launch-says-apples-jony-ive : "The much more complex responsibilities are in the realm of the social and the cultural"
Has it ever occurred to you that all your news is selected, curated, shaped and presented to show you what you’re required to see. If not, every paper you read, every news magazine and every radio and tv programme would have exactly the same items in the same order of priority. Each of them decides on the “top stories” as well as the ones that are in in “small print”. They also decide what they will not print and will never print. If you’ve just had a full page ad in your paper advertising Exxon you’re hardly going to have articles criticising Exxon in the same issue. Or likely any issue. Who pays the bills? When you read your favourite news source, what did they ignore and downplay to bring you “today’s news”?
Why were the first 23 pages of a recent issue of the UK’s media publication, The Daily Mail, devoted to the new royal baby? Remember that this was the same day that the United Nations warned that one million species are at risk of extinction worldwide.
One challenge with every modern service is personalisation. There can’t be a curator for every user. So there will also be algorithms that will help you see what you wish. Although let’s stop right there. “To see what I wish”.. THAT is the issue we/ they should be fighting. That’s dangerous anyways, and it’s leading to polarisation and a lot of the the trouble we are seeing today.
Yes, and it is especially bad because the algorithms are incredibly stupid (even though they are being trained constantly by a LOT of humans). They can't really tell what you 'wish' to see, but just make assumptions based on what you've seen. (So, say, someone stops over and wants to laugh about some Barney meme... and suddenly the algos start presenting you purple dinosaurs everywhere.)
I wish Apple News+ was 100% curated, with fact checks on everything, taking responsibility in presenting a multifaceted news flow, and not falling for cheap tricks, trends and paid manipulation. And I wish it was available world wide, without geographically tailored content, until regional content was in place. I’d much prefer to use global news than news from the little region where I live anyways.
Yeah, except even 'fact checking' is problematic, well, because humans. cf. Snopes.
Trump has repeatedly characterized media and journalists as an enemy. Watch any of his bizarre campaign-rallies where he glorifies violence against journalists and whips up his white supremacist fascist cult base to chant whatever insanity he likes. He does it for the same reason any other dictator unbounded by law does: to weaken the rule of law and cement himself as an emperor. He has completely unmasked the "conservative" movement. It was never about low taxes and minimal government. It was always about seizing power and hurting women and minorities in the cruelest ways possible.
You try to put a false veneer of normalcy on Trump but he's not "misunderstood." He's very clear about what he's doing, and nobody is stupid enough to need you to interpret anything. And the fact that you're willing to lie about something so obvious says a lot about everything else you say.
Dimension B. I'm not sure we can continue this conversation unless we can move our universes a bit closer.
I guess I should ask one clarifying questions first, though. Is Trump a bumbling idiot, or evil genius? (The MSM can't seem to keep that story straight, so I'd be interested on your take.)
kiltedgreen said: Has it ever occurred to you that all your news is selected, curated, shaped and presented to show you what you’re required to see. If not, every paper you read, every news magazine and every radio and tv programme would have exactly the same items in the same order of priority.
True (I've seen Newsies!), but I think it has gotten worse in some ways (though to be fair, better in others... at least more chance of exposure/bypass now).
Note: have you seen those videos with clips of all the various news agencies reporting certain key phrases (while trying to seem 'off the cuff') with such exact wording and terminology, that they had to have been sent a script, and are just reading it?
Comments
I'm not sure how old you are or what your perspective is on the events of 20 years ago, but it's different than mine. By the time Apple started selling music through iTunes, file sharing was known to be illegal and widespread. I went back and looked up some dates....Metallica sued Napster in March of 2000. Others followed. After being sued by the RIAA, Napster was shut down by court order in early 2001. There were some attempts by the music industry to start selling online, but none reached even close to critical mass. Ripping CD's was still frowned upon by the RIAA, though there wasn't much they could do about it (save Sony's pathetic attempt to prevent it). In 2003, the iTunes Music Store debuted. It was enormously successful because there was a market for reasonably priced, legal downloads. The labels were way, way behind on this, and Apple filled the gap quickly.
Magazines are dead. Say it with me.
Apple absolutely excludes political opinions. Every platform does. And sorry, but "hatred" (however that's defined) and "violence" are not terrorism and would be protected speech were it not for it being a private platform. Advocating or inciting violence (directly) is illegal. "Hate speech" is not. You're going down a very dangerous road here when you advocate for silencing people. Very dangerous.
Quote: "And if Facebook and Twitter actually used any sort of “liberal template” it wouldn’t be largely recruiting old people into right wing hate and rage, with funding from Russia seeking to destabilize the west by funding right wing nationalism."
Oh boy. First, Facebook and Twitter's discrimination against conservative views is well established and unquestionable. They do not apply the same standards to all users of their platform. They ban and shadow ban conservatives routinely while ignoring blatant violations of their rules by Leftists. Secondly, I don't see how they are "recruiting" anyone into anything. Any "right wing hate and rage" (like actual Nazis and KKK members for example) is exceptionally small, not just on social media but in the nation. The KKK is estimated to have fewer than 3,600 members nationwide. Third, Russia? Are you kidding? The Russians spent $100,000 in Facebook ads both before and after the 2016 election, supporting and opposing both parties' nominees. The candidates and associated groups spent $2 billion. Their goal was to sow chaos, and they succeeded. If you actually think the Russians are running around spreading "right wing hate and rage," you might want to check your closet for monsters.
The Current science is something like 99.9999% (might be more 9s) that the current climate shift is caused by humans.
I pointed out that a lot changed between 2001 and 2006. And then you come back ignoring everything so you can start screaming about liberals and how Facebooks isn't giving enough airtime to white supremacists and neo nazis.
Nobody is out here waiting for 12 paragraphs of rage from some old dude trying to convince them that they should also reject science and start believing whatever Fox and Friends is telling them to believe today. So all ten of you, just stop.
Comment on the issues raised in the article. "Fake news" is garbage content generated to sell ads or sell opinions. It is not whatever some fascist dictator or his state news says it is. All of your collective comments--every one of which comes from Fox and Friends, by the way--are harebrained John Birch Society nuttery that nobody on AI wants to hear you rant about. So please stop.
I've seen this done in several different fields now and in institutions. In the areas where it has happened where I have some expertise, it has always been when a paradigm was about to be tipped, and those in power wanted to shut down the dissent. Or, there can be other reasons like greed, or power itself.
Ironic for those who are just ignorant (and doing what others around them are doing without understanding). But, for those in the know, it is a calculated power-play (especially all the redefinition of terms, strong appeals to emotion, shutting down any opposing ideas from being expressed, etc.).
That's actually not the claim. Same for everything from vaccination to Intelligent Design. BTW, that's another tell of either ignorance or dishonesty, when one side of a debate has to straw-man the other side, or can't seem to state what the opposing position is... or especially purposely distorts it to make it look silly.
That's the other possibility from what I said in response to Rayer above... and it's truly scary. One of the podcasts I listen to jokes about 'Dimension A' and 'Dimension B'. In other words, the sides have deluded themselves to the point that they can't even put themselves in the mode of thinking of the other for the purpose of understanding and discussion. They are just locked into their own views and parrot/emote. I'm still hoping there are enough people left who aren't locked into this behavior, but I do wonder.
I hear you.
I think it would pretty much take a miracle at this point to save the USA (or most of the 'West' for that matter).
I'm not sure where you moved, but I don't think escape will be that easy. It's going to impact the world when it crashes (and I think it will be within my lifetime).
But, you're absolutely right that this has been coming for quite some time... I just think it has been accelerating faster than people who follow culture (like myself) would have imagined.
I'm not sure what your particular worldview is, but this quote comes to mind:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
From my own background, I've seen what happens when postmodern ideas are unleashed on an academic discipline... which started quite a long time ago in religious studies (I think long before it hit politics and government). It won't survive it.
More like the 'left' is driving people there, if anything. But, what so many seem to miss (and it's purposeful at the political and MSM level), is that there is a huge difference between racist movements and nationalistic movements, especially in the light of globalist movements.
What I've seen (and been told) is that the younger people are flocking to nationalist movements, not so much as some kind of love of the nation, but in reaction to the effects of globalism and the ideological warfare coming from the left. The left seems hellbent on destroying society, and then trying to pick up the pieces and gain control.
Total BS. Where did you get that idea from? Let me guess, Al Gore, Bill Nye, and NBC?
There is a large consensus (much less than your figure above) that humans have caused some part of the change.
The rest is based off computer models, where the alarmists and MSM play off the really scary end of the projections.
Here's the thing, though. You might also want to study the impacts (especially on the world's poorest), of the various proposed reactions. Whether the alarmists are right or not, several of the proposed reactions have outcomes I have to fight against (out of a basic sense of decency), either way.
And, then there are the $Trillions that will be changing hands in the economies of the world that won't have much of any impact on the climate, anyway.
If it were just them, I wouldn't be quite so worried. There are a heck of a lot more who are being down-ranked to de-platformed. And, it is about ideology, not hate or violence.
I don't watch Fox and Friends. I only hear a clip from time to time from Fox when it is being critiqued by the sources I do follow.
re: 'fake news' - I somewhat agree the term has been broadened from the original meaning. Yes, it was a pretty specific thing once upon a time. Propaganda, opinion, distortion, misinformation campaign, etc. would probably be better terms than fake news.
(As an aside... that's another one where the MSM twisted Trump, and I think a lot of the MSM people actually believe it now. The whole 'enemy of the people' thing. Trump said that fake news is the enemy of the people. Then another time, I think he called CNN fake news. They put 2+2 together, self-identified, and have been running with it since. So, I have a good chuckle when I hear journalists saying 'Trump said we are the enemy of the people.' Must be projection or something, LOL.)
This is absolutely a lie.
Trump has repeatedly characterized media and journalists as an enemy. Watch any of his bizarre campaign-rallies where he glorifies violence against journalists and whips up his white supremacist fascist cult base to chant whatever insanity he likes. He does it for the same reason any other dictator unbounded by law does: to weaken the rule of law and cement himself as an emperor. He has completely unmasked the "conservative" movement. It was never about low taxes and minimal government. It was always about seizing power and hurting women and minorities in the cruelest ways possible.
You try to put a false veneer of normalcy on Trump but he's not "misunderstood." He's very clear about what he's doing, and nobody is stupid enough to need you to interpret anything. And the fact that you're willing to lie about something so obvious says a lot about everything else you say.
Why were the first 23 pages of a recent issue of the UK’s media publication, The Daily Mail, devoted to the new royal baby? Remember that this was the same day that the United Nations warned that one million species are at risk of extinction worldwide.
Selection? Suppression? Curation? Censorship? Never!
Yeah, except even 'fact checking' is problematic, well, because humans. cf. Snopes.
Dimension B.
I'm not sure we can continue this conversation unless we can move our universes a bit closer.
I guess I should ask one clarifying questions first, though. Is Trump a bumbling idiot, or evil genius? (The MSM can't seem to keep that story straight, so I'd be interested on your take.)
True (I've seen Newsies!), but I think it has gotten worse in some ways (though to be fair, better in others... at least more chance of exposure/bypass now).
Note: have you seen those videos with clips of all the various news agencies reporting certain key phrases (while trying to seem 'off the cuff') with such exact wording and terminology, that they had to have been sent a script, and are just reading it?