FF said:“Apple is authoritative in this way:”
I think you mean authoritarian. The acceptability of content hosted by specific tech companies is never as free as you think it is. The filtering isn’t just technical (spam etc), it is also content-specific - it isn’t the internet- which is wide open enough to allow recruiting of American youth by terrorists. Prohibiting inciteful dangerous content such as homophobia and radical para-military recruitment is not the defintion of facist bigotry. Whether you want to persecute a sexuality or a nation - willing harm to others who do no harm, your speech is operationally specific enough to be called hatred. It is a perversion of language to claim that condemning bigotry and intolerance is bigotted and intolerant.

RayLan

Apple is authoritative in this way:

Let’s compare the availability of apps on iPhone to the availability of apps on Android. With Android, anybody can write an app, no prior approval required. Anybody can then place that app on the Android Market, if I’m not mistaken. However, with Apple, every app must receive approval from some Apple authoritative system. It is supposed to be a “benefit” to its consumers. Personally, I would prefer to make the choice for myself, even if it means having to uninstall a particular app.

Of course, there is always going to be some sort of filtering, or mechanism. Especially against malicious code, and spam. What you have to look at is, what, why, and how. It is very difficult to define “hate speech”, in the first place. It’s like pornography. “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.” Do you trust someone else’s subjective decision, or your own? Would you want to make that decision for other people? If so, then you are an authoritarian. Perhaps authoritative is a bit harsh in both cases, but you get my drift. It’s late, and I’m getting tired.

@FF “I already said that Apple has every right to censor the material that can be used on their products.”
You implied that - not directly stated it. Even then, how does that make them authoritarian bigots? If you think that there is any media or software company that is perfectly objective and uncensored (I think ‘unfiltered’ is a better word) you are not living in the real world. On the other hand, the internet makes a mockery of editorial selection, the result being a world wide babble, in which discerning truth is like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack, not even knowing what the needle looks like. Your censorship of Apple hardly brings you any closer to fact, than giving a voice to the KKK.

RayLan

I already said that Apple has every right to censor the material that can be used on their products. People are free to choose to use Apple, or not. I choose not to. And thankfully, I still can. My question was, do you trust Apple to censor content? If you do, then buy an Apple product. If not, use open source products. If you do trust Apple to censor content, who else do you trust? The government? Why would you trust a private company over the government? Government officials are freely elected, Apple management is not. Perhaps it would be best if you were allowed to make that decision on your own. Perhaps, you do not think other people should be “allowed” to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps, you would just like to control what people are allowed to think. That would be much easier than actually exposing what they, and their “ideas”, really are, through logic and reasoning. Bigotry, racism, homophobia and xenophobia, etc., are wrong. Tell me why they are wrong. That’s the challenge we face, not whether or not to censor. We ban drugs, but they still exist. We ban “hate speech”, and guess what? It will still exist. We must fight the “ideas”, not the “speech”.

but what does rico, suave think of fat freddy?

FF said “We need to keep these people out in the open, so that we can show people how wrong they are.”

They may garner enough bigotted anger to incite a riot and homophobic crimes. Why should a company like Apple be responsible for keeping all hate groups ‘out in the open’. Radical bigots seem, like most diseases to have no problem spreading their pathology by being heard. Nobody has to provide a venue. That’s not what the consitution requires.

Big B

Also, see Miko’s comment, below, regarding patent laws. Patent laws are a form of government intervention. See: “jailbreaking” and “open source”.

I remember a while back, the local KKK had a rally at the county fairgrounds. More people showed up to protest the rally, than to participate. That’s a good thing. We need to keep these people out in the open, so that we can show people how wrong they are.  Otherwise, we become complacent, and they go underground.

Fat Freddy, how would you feel about an app the promoted racism?

The same way I would feel about the KKK having the right to hold a rally.

During the McCarthy era, Ayn Rand, well known anti-Communist, testified before Congress. She was opposed to the Blacklisting and censorship of Communists. You either believe in Free Speech, or you do not. The speech we hate, is the speech that needs to be protected the most. Please do not make me have to quote SC Justice William O. Douglas, again.

ff; by all means, wash down your happy meal with a 6
pack of four loco and rebel on with your bad self.
that’s the spirit that made this country, uh, great?

Only after smoking a fatty.

Anyway, I heard the crack dealer down the street from me is selling Four Loco. Maybe, I’ll pick up a couple of Dimes while I’m there. Nothing like a good weed, crack, alcohol, caffeine buzz.

Big B

THAT’S HOW [CRONY] CAPITALISM WORKS!

This is not capitalism. You contradict yourself. First, you say that the corporations buy politicians, then you say it’s unregulated. If the corporations are buying the politicians (which I agree), then it’s NOT unregulated. It IS regulated through government favoritism. The same government favoritism that bailed out the big banks, and let the small banks fail. The government, not consumers, decided which banks to save. That is not free market capitalism. That’s Socialism. In a free market economy, the big banks would have failed, and the little banks would have scarfed up the pieces. That’s called Creative Destruction, and it is part of the free market. Government intervention prevents Creative Destruction, which is how large, monopolistic corporations exist. Remove the government, and the corporations fall, as well.

ff; by all means, wash down your happy meal with a 6
pack of four loco and rebel on with your bad self.
that’s the spirit that made this country, uh, great?

Fat freddy

You argue against yourself. Apple has indeed been guilty of monopolistic practices throughout their history. So has Microsoft, Goldman Sachs, ect. THAT’S HOW CAPITALISM WORKS! The big eat the little, then only the big remain. Then the big do whatever the hell they want, including purchasing polititians, influence, power, and yes, censorship.

If you don’t like it, move to another country, pinko.

(no, seriously. This is unregulated capitalism at it’s best. This is what happens when a few with the cash can make decisions effecting us all. But hey, that’s the system we chose. Mom always said life wasn’t fair, well it sure as shit ain’t)

A public relations decision - Apple is free to censor whatever it likes. So Free Speech gives freedom of tech companies to suppress whatever speech they like. Its hard to determine whether hate speech is protected by the first ammendment. Where does one draw the line - should the KKK get equal time?

Zach

When it comes to words, I find very few things to be “offensive”. However, what I do find offensive, is the notion that an individual, or a group of people, can make decisions for me better than I can make decisions for myself. Of course, I am willing to accept the responsibility for my decisions, are you? Is anybody, anymore?

Big B

When did I say anything about regulation? Apple censors their content for the “benefit” of its users. People can “choose” to use Apple products, or not. Personally, I choose Droid. There is no censorship, at least, not like this. So, what else is Apple censoring from its users? Do you really trust them to monitor your content? You may agree with their decision to censor this particular app, but what about the next one? You will only see what they want you to see. Doesn’t that concern you? But I guess they know what is best. Just take a look at their top 150 shareholders, and tell me if you trust them.

But even if I were an Apple consumer, I should have the choice to download the app, or not. (I would choose not to). But Apple doesn’t give you that choice. They also do not give their users a choice of different web browsers (like Skyfire) or Flash players.

Like I said, Apple has a long history of limiting what their consumers can use. I learned that in 1983, when my High School got a classroom full of Apple IIe. I have never bought an Apple product, nor will I ever. Apple has been trying to corner the personal computing market since its inception. Which is fine. However, history has shown, that most businesses that try to corner any market, usually ends up in bankruptcy.

You want Apple to censor content? Look at their top shareholders, and tell me if you trust them to limit content.

http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-major.html?t=AAPL

Fat Freddy

That’s your unfettered capitalism and libretarian free speech for ya!

Apple is a private company (with the rights of a private citizen I might add) and if they want to exercise their right to free speech by infringing on someone elses, well, who are you to say they are wrong? Are you saying that there should be a regulation on their business forcing them to run their business they way a regulator wants it run?

What are you, a fucking commie?

Apple always has been good at censorship. Just because something might be offensive to some, is a good enough reason to censor it. What’s next? Burning anti-gay books? That will work, for sure. While you’re at it, ban Happy Meals and Four Loco. Fucking authoritarians.

For the life of me I can’t fathom why the term “conservative” is applied whwnever reporting on the antics of ignorant and bigoted hypocrites! I’ve yet to get a straight answer as to what conservatives are conserving when I look around me and see the environmental, social, and economic destruction caused by a reactionary ideology that preaches fear, superstition, segregation, and greed masquerading as initiative and achievement.