Good point. I wonder if Apple will/has banned their app too? They did that to Gab.
Just goes to show if you are doing anything remotely controversial do not build in Apple's ecosystem and most definitely do not invest in development of software that relies on being distributed in said ecosystem. If they ban a podcast or an app for hatespeech or wrongthink (under their 'definition' or on the basis of a hyped up PR campaign from a well funded political opponent perhaps) they can ban you for anything on a whim.
Go right ahead. And then watch as nobody uses them.
Because nobody other than a fringe minority actually wants free speech in all its deranged, violent, racist, mysgonistic, cruel, abusive forms. The majority of us just want a nice, safe space free from the nasty side of humanity.
I'm not really certain how to respond to this viewpoint of yours.
You seem to be under the impression that such a safe space 1) can exist and 2) would be beneficial.
I'm going to simply point out that such a space cannot exist. People will think things, and those things will eventually leak out. There are very real evolutionary-biological reasons for all of those things and mans nature is not so easy to change.
As for whether such a space would be beneficial, I hold that it would not. It may be beneficial to have something akin to it as part of child rearing, gradually alleviated as the child gains maturity, but the dark nasty side of humanity cannot be eliminated. It can only be sublimated and disciplined. Thus, to eliminate speech simply because it offends your sensibilities is to ensure that you are blindsided as the nasty things metastasize into a cascade of pent-up Id.
And then where will you be? On your knees in front of the undealt with, undisciplined Id, simply because rather than have a dialogue with it, you chose to stuff it into a box.
You must spend a lot of time on the Peninsula where everything is always nice and sunny. Good for you.
Some of us prefer a non-fixed outlook and an intellectual curiosity which sometimes involves wading through unsavory content. Also known as the real world. Please do not try to stifle my choices.
( In abstract, away from gov/private entity debate )
That's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the ground.
People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram, Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major criticism whilst still happily removing content.
That's thanks to walled-gardens, advertising, and a lack of the average user's ability to use adequate replacement services. Quite frankly it's not likely for the average user to learn about DuckDuckGo, MillionShort, or Exalead. We're starting to see some small pushback against Alphabet's YouTube, but there aren't that many places that will ever have a viable alternative. Dailymotion's the closest - but they're not all that close.
Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal with Instagram or Facebook.
So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of the 1990s.
To each their own; ignorance is bliss I suppose. Me, I prefer my steaks rare and my information uncensored. We can co-exist of course; I respect your preference for well done and filtered content.
It’s something completely different, and invoking the term for unrelated concepts is bound to muddy the waters and doom the fight for actual net neutrality.
SCOTUS has ruled discriminating against a gay man to be akin to discriminating against him for his sex. Sex is undoubtedly a protected class. The argument is, roughly, that the person would face no prejudice if they were a woman marrying a man. But because they are a man marrying one, the treatment changes. It’s a bit convoluted, but it makes sense.
Good on Apple I say.