tommikele

It's a shame, but Apple will most likely comply if they need to change any existing controls since it is their best business interests to do so. The tools to block certain types of material already exist and Apple has embraced the strongest controls of any OS.

I do not object to a user setting up their own device to filter certain material, but I what I strenuously object to is government mandating such things. It is none of their business. Another intrusion into people's personal lives sponsored by government.

Given the tools to block this content already exist, it is clear this is little more than the usual political grandstanding by worthless politicians trying to plump up their resume in a state that is generally quite conservative. Interesting enough, their are several "Mormon" porn sites so a lot of them seem to enjoy the very material they want to block. It would not be surprising to find the bill's sponsor had a secret stash of Mormon porn on his/her Android phone! If she/he had aniPhone she/he would have filtered it out!

Tech607 said:

The better way of handling this is to tax their products as they come back into this country. Do this until they learn that if you hurt the American people by manufacturing in China it will cost you where it hurts. Not give them millions just so they take that cash and still move most of their operations over seas. 

Wrong. Just like the "trickle down" garbage from Reagan, Bush and Trump, tariffs and duty taxes have been proven time after time to not stimulate capital investment and production. Without that you will not have more jobs for Americans and reduced dependence on foreign sources. By simply levying tariffs and duty taxes all you will accomplish is to take money away from the end users of these products and hurt Americans - the exact opposite of the goal. How did Trump's tariffs and duty taxes work out? They were a complete failure that only succeeded in taking money from our pockets. Without domestic production all it meant was we pay more for the same thing.

If you did  a little research on the proposal you would find it is for capital investment and to provide incentives to build new production facilities. If it results in new profit sources and provides jobs and reduces dependency so be it. Unless you want to go socialist, profit is essential. You don't want to go socialist or Marxist economics or do you?

Fake MAGA garbage like we have seen the last four years is what picks our pockets and allows the money to be stolen from taxpayers while no gains in jobs or cost reductions are made.

qwerty52 said:

jungmark said:

Epic waste of time. 

...... and money!
Sweeney is lucky that he is the CEO of Epic, otherwise he has been fired a long time ago. He is destroying Epic, just because of 

his personal ego ambitions.

Epic has lost much more money to pay lawyers, from missed revenue from AppStore sales and from the loss of customers, than if Epic has kept paying the AppStore commission, like it did it over the last ten years.

Are you their accountant? Unless you are their accountant  or the CEO or a board member you have no idea what the numbers are or how they calculated how much they are willing to invest in following this path. They have obviously calculated the investment to pursue this path is worth the financial risk and if they are successful they see the payoff as huge. If they lose, the cost will be written off against their profits which on an estimated $1 billion of revenue with gross margins over  50% is huge. They can afford to lose. I doubt you have much knowledge about who controls Epic and has the biggest chunk of ownership. Simply put, you have no idea whatsoever what the numbers and returns are either way it comes out.

No company goes into an action like this blind or without the support of its board.

Epic fail by Epic. Such attempts are likely to fail everywhere whether it is because legislatures won't pass them or Federal courts strike them down. States  don't have to jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce. If the Feds pass a law/regulation it may be different, but for now it is unlikely to go anywhere.

As soon as the first bill passes, years of litigation and court tests will begin.

GeorgeBMac said:

Bullhorn Lady sounds like any stereotypical jihadist equipped for spreading jihad and causing death and destruction.   Why is she not locked up?

Here is a lesson is the basics of the justice system . I'm sure you know the lesson, but don't really care if it doesn't jibe with your opinion of the accused criminal.

You are entitled to bail unless the prosecutors can show you are likely to flee or are a danger to others and that danger can only be addressed by keeping you in jail until while you wait for legal proceedings and trial. She is out on bail and has not yet been convicted of a crime. Have you heard of something called a presumption of innocence? Even OJ and Trump entitled to that. Small matter of justice or should we only give that to people you approve of?

We just came through an administration that believed constitutional rights are only for the privileged few whose ideology matched theirs. It seems you might be going for the same strategy, but just have a different ideology. If that is correct for someone, they are no different what we just threw out in the garbage.

Bullhorn lady is not charged with terrorism. At least so far she isn't. Perhaps that will change. However, as is the point of the article, it seems destroyed or attempted to destroy evidence. That's a very serious crime that is unaffected by ideology. That alone is likely to get her some time behind bars