undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSteko13y ago0 comments

"absolute control on a market"

I don't think this means what you think it means.

"exerts its influence on political grounds"

You're assuming Apple is exerting it's influence on political grounds as opposed to simply thinking the app has failed their taste guidelines. I've seen a number of comments suggesting the same thing or that they are buckling to government pressure but without evidence all of that amounts to little more then conspiracy theory mongering.

"Whether it gets one complaint of a million is not relevant to the question"

It's certainly relevant, the force of numbers is how pressure is exerted both in the market and in democracy. I'm sure there's a few people outraged that white power apps aren't in the app store. The key word is "few" as in generally, no one gives a fuck. Nearly every argument slamming Apple over Drones+ seems just as effective when restated for white power political party apps. IMHO that's a sign something's wrong with those arguments.

"if this was the case of ISPs blocking access to a website"

I've already talked about this above. I don't see these as remotely equivalent.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

tripzilch13y ago

As soon as you start censoring certain kinds of information (whether it's a topical news aggegrator mashup or anti-gay propaganda ... or both) you are taking a political stance. Period. Censorship means you stop being neutral.

Now whether this stance exerts any meaningful influence on society and public opinion, largely depends on the public mindshare this entity has.

You are arguing the wrong way around and attacking straw men of "conspiracy theory mongering". Please go and reply to those actual comments that say these things, if they are there, you can probably find them all the way below on the page, downvoted by the Apple fanboi and electronic freedom proponent alike.

And not particularly as a reply to you, I thought I'd look up Freedom of Speech, see what it exactly means. I thought, for something to become a Freedom-of-Speech (Human Rights) issue, you need to have a political entity that enforces it (such as the imaginary claim made by your straw men). But it seems to be a bit broader than that:

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

I highlighted those two parts. "Through any media" means that, if this app would also get refused by the Android platform, the author is practically prevented from using the medium "smartphone app" to impart his message. Fortunately, Android is open (even if their app market would reject it). That does (IMVPO) not make it right for Apple, because they do nothing to preserve this freedom, it exists despite their actions, not unhindered because of it.

The "regardless of frontiers" part, not entirely serious, I know that it refers to geopolitical frontiers, but it could be easily extended to the walls of Apple's "walled garden": what it means to say is that you should be able to freely impart your information from Nation X to Nation Y. This blockage of the Drone news aggegrator means that he cannot in fact reach the people of "Nation iPhone-user".

(The fact that perhaps most people of Nation iPhone do not want to know, funnily enough is shared by a lot of Chinese people as well)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse