[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...

[madeofpalk]

> Apple does not have anything resembling a monopoly in podcasting.

Really?

[tpxl]

What is Apples monopoly exactly?

[xaqfox]

They have a monopoly on phones with non-licensable operating systems preinstalled. You can thank the EU for that definition.