[dagenix]

As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.

[mhkool]

If one forces a person to to talk freely in a backyard instead of of the main street, one is censoring him since no one can hear him any more. That is happening when Apple pushes Alex Jones out of iTunes.

[mijamo]

Main street is public. And as far as I know the owner of the land can kick you when they want, for instance in malls or such.

So Apple censoring is the same as a mall refusing you to hold a protest there, which happens all the time.

[Covzire]

There really is no alternative to the current crop of tech giants. They literally have a monopoly on social media and are all extremely left-leaning, and increasingly hostile to any legal dissent. There are three scenarios I see playing out.

1. The tech giants use their influence to get enough Democrats elected in 2018 to keep crushing any political dissent on their platforms that reaches any kind of popularity. They are ostensibly pursuing this course today, and it's a little frightening. 2. Republicans keep the house and/or Senate, and Regulation or Anti-Trust suits ramp up since half the country has no voice online anymore. 3. SV returns to the first amendment, does a 180 degree turn, and only purges illegal speech like libel, slander, threats, etc.

[madeofpalk]

> There really is no alternative to the current crop of tech giants

This is a truth. The current laws haven't done a good job at modernising and adapting to the influence these tech giants have and how they operate.

> and are all extremely left-leaning

Here's the question worth considering: Are they extremely/abnormally left leaning, or is the world getting more left leaning? What makes them left leaning? Because they advocate for general social issues like treating humans as equals and with dignity and respect?

Banning Infowars isnt banning conservative views - its banning abhorrent hate speech. Calling Sandy Hook "completely fake" and "manufactured" and saying that the kids from Stoneman Douglas High School are crisis actors isn't "right wing" or conservative.

[Covzire]

I'm not here to defend Jones, but I'd rather live in a world where people decide to avoid objectionable sources on their own, instead of some big brother or sister making that decision for me.

I see the world of information like an immune system. If your system is active and repelling threats, it gets stronger. If you are never allowed to see actual threats, your system atrophies and you become the intellectual equivalent of a native American when a European colonialist shows up at your door. Bad ideas from your own side will come some day, and if your big brother has been suppressing dissent enough, you'll accept those bad ideas like a lemming off a cliff.

[madeofpalk]

I don't see this some "big brother" making decisions for you, but rather people at Apple, Youtube, etc making decisions about what objectionable content they want on their sites.

[jazzyk]

Q: Which part of the Web is public (like the roads)?

A: None.

- Apple is a private entity.

- Verizon (and all other ISPs) is/are a private entity.

- Telecom equipment and communication hubs are private entities.

If they wish, they can make you a non-existent entity (on the Web). We have two options:

- regulate some companies as utilities

- build a public network (just like the roads).

[undseg]

Having the basic right of internet access being treated as a public utility would help greatly with these issues, I agree. It would help with monopolies and issues with regulation.

Of course, I don't see such an opinion being particularly welcomed here.

A chunk of the basic infrastructure of the internet is free just out of sheer luck (good willed inventors and founders).

[jiojfdsal3]

So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?

[JumpCrisscross]

> So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?

Not necessarily. Apple is a non-monopoly making a judgement about their corner of a decentralised protocol. That’s quite different from an ISP, where many Americans have little or no choice. Particularly when said ISPs have often received lawful monopolies and government subsidies. Context matters. Finally, my ISP doesn’t have terms of use in respect of content; Apple does.

[jiojfdsal3]

In my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?

You cherry-picked one point. Taken together, Apple’s lack of monopoly status, terms of use and lack of an explicit history of subsidies and markets exclusively granted by fiat make the First Amendment less applicable to it than e.g. Verizon.

In the cases where customers dinged ISPs for throttling, it came down to the ISPs having marketed “Internet access,” not some convoluted expansion of the First Amendment to private actors.

I believe in encouraging a public forum for the exchange of ideas. But I also believe in private citizens’—including corporations’—rights to decide with what they’re associated. In this particular case, we have someone who serially relays emotionally-charged and unambiguously-false information to his viewers. Not going to defend him unless a government tries to shut him down.

[jiojfdsal3]

Except Apple receives tons of subsidies.[1] Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area. I can choose between Google or Apple. On the other hand, I can choose between Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sonic, or T-Mobile.

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-fa...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area

The courts disagree. ISPs can be treated as public utilities by states, if they so choose. (New York's Public Service Commission just kicked an ISP out of the state [1].)

In any case, we are talking about specific products. Internet service with respect to ISPs; podcasting with respect to Apple. Apple does not have anything resembling a monopoly in podcasting.

[1] http://www.wktv.com/content/news/New-York-PSC-orders-Charter...

[tpxl]

What is Apples monopoly exactly?

[yifanlu]

No, because ISPs are natural monopolies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly). The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for investing in the infrastructure. As such, there’s no easy way for competition to happen. (You would have to invest in a new infrastructure. Notice how you never have two cable companies or two DSL companies unless it’s one company selling under two names). The reason net neutrality is a big deal is because ISPs want their cake and eat it too. They like the protections of a natural monopoly but they don’t like the regulations that comes with it.

So ISPs dictating what content is acceptable would be like your garbage collection company refusing to collect political flyers for an opposing party or something. Even though it’s not technically the government, I would see it as a government sponsored entity.

Now if you want something compariable, consider the bakery refusing to serve a gay couple. Even though I support gay rights, I agree there with the Supreme Court that a private entity should not be forced to endorse speech they do not agree with. And that would be what Apple is doing here.

[singularity2001]

Apple and Google have a monopoly on the App store(s).

[jiojfdsal3]

The definition of an "internet service provider" is "a company that provides subscribers with access to the Internet". Almost every American has access to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile for their mobile internet. Should these companies be allowed to block content?

[wuliwong]

>The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for investing in the infrastructure.

Your summary of a natural monopoly is at odds with the definition in the wikipedia article you linked.

[linusw]

Apple isn't a public utility. It does not maintain iTunes as a public service, nor does it have any sort of monopoly over podcast distribution. It would be very strange to regulate it as such. (To be clear, internet access is not regarded as a public utility in the US, although I think I lean heavily in that direction.)

[jiojfdsal3]

I can switch my ISP from Verizon to AT&T or Comcast with a single phone call tomorrow. Apple is far more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my area. Should we regulate Apple as a public utility?

[yifanlu]

Because AT&T is DSL, Comcast is cable, and Verizon is Fiber. If you want the fastest internet, you really don’t have a choice. And telling people “you have a choice, just switch to something slower” is not the same as “you have a choice, download the podcast elsewhere” because in the second case you get the same quality (lol I said quality when referring to infowars but I digress) podcast.

[wuliwong]

In Atlanta At&T, Google and Comcast all offer fiber. I don't believe we have Verizon here.

Also, just because one company offers a faster connection than another does not make it a monopoly. Whatever company that sells the fastest production car does not automatically have a monopoly on supplying automobiles. Choosing an ISP is more complex than simply finding the fastest speed. Price and customer service come to mind immediately as very important. And if all the ISPs offer speeds that are above your needs, speed might not even be a major factor in your decision.

[jiojfdsal3]

There are multiple service providers that provide similar internet download speeds (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile). In your view, would it be okay for these companies to restrict content?

[dagenix]

I support the term "freedom of speech" as it refers to the Constitution being used correctly.

[threeseed]

Well you can't have it both ways now can you.

Verizon, AT&T et al according to the US Supreme Court have the right to freedom of speech just as much as you do. So yes they are free to block whatever content they want.

And you have the right to not support them, campaign against them or build your own ISP. But your right to freedom of speech shouldn't stop others right to their freedom of speech.

[2_listerine_pls]

4 companies are becoming the middlemen of free speech. Should they be allowed censor whatever they want?

[tomohawk]

As another reminder to everyone: free speech is a cherished value.

There is an expectation on everyone's part to uphold these values. To practice tolerance. To pull together.

By not upholding these values, Apple is stating that they disagree with free speech. They are exercising intolerance. They are saying it is better to create separate little bubbles to exist in.

[pteredactyl]

Exactly. I'm tired of the 'you stupid idiot, <tech company> is not the government' argument.

Yes they're not the US government. But fortunately, the US government is the gold standard of free speech around the world.

If companies do not wish to uphold that standard, they'll probably suffer. Like FB and Twitter did in the stock market last week.

[jhayward]

> By not upholding these values, Apple is stating that they disagree with free speech

No they are emphatically not, because Jone's screeds are not intended to be free speech as cherished by society.

They are acknowledging that society's norms can be weaponized against itself by those bent on power and destruction, and that tolerance of intolerance is incompatible with continued existence of the norms of free speech and tolerance. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[394549]

> As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.

When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censor (besides a state church, but the amendment also banned those).

Now there are private entities with comparable censorship power to governments (examples: Google, backbone providers, cell phone carriers). For the sake of the people's natural right of free expression, the interpretation that backs your "reminder" may be obsolete, and anti-censorship law may need to be made to apply to them.

[dagenix]

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.

[394549]

> Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.

That's neither here nor there. I wasn't making an originalist textual argument in my comment, but actually the opposite. The modern world, with such powerful "private" entities that can engage in censorship, doesn't map very well onto the world of the founders in many ways. Therefore, to preserve the original effect and intent of the First Amendment, the law perhaps needs to be modified.

[Hermel]

Yes, and everyone is free to criticize Apple for not supporting freedom of speech, even though if they are not obliged to do so.

[karpodiem]

Does this include cake baking?

[onecooldev24]

Apple is not a private entity, its publicly traded company that has a monopoly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Apple is not a private entity

Another case of terrible economic nomenclature. Apple is a public private sector company.

Apple is in the private sector [1] of the economy, i.e. it "is not controlled by the State." This distinction is important to Constitutional law, since the First Amendment does not restrict the private sector; it restricts the state (also known as the public sector [2]).

Apple is a publicly-held corporation, as opposed to a privately-held one like Uber, but that's less relevant to this discussion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sector

[matthewmacleod]

Apple does not have a monopoly on podcast indexing and it won’t become true no matter how many times you repeat it.