Apple's CEO Tim Cook: No Place for Hate Speech on Apple Product Platforms

Jun 3, 2013
4,367
1,687
410
Canada
Not completely, no. We're seeing greater push back by the public, more efforts to deplatform hatemongers by private companies, and a previously unseen vigilance by public institutions to limit platforms for hate's expressions Charlottesville might have been the more obvious impetus, but I think Trump lit the fire that has resulted in companies and the public taking notice at what unfettered speech creates.
How isn't it still protected legally?
 
Apr 18, 2018
4,938
6,917
395
USA
dunpachi.com
Speech that foments a society and culture in which minorities - muslims hispanics, black people, gays, transsexuals - feel threatened isn't protected. You don't like it? Move to an island where you can spew venomous hate to your heart's content. Here in the US, where unfettered speech was once foolishly protected, we are beginning to put an end to unchallenged platforms of expression that are used by people whose sole aim is to galvanize the public for genocidal intent. History will not be repeated.
I bet you call Trump a fascist, too.

:messenger_grimmacing_:messenger_ok:
 
Aug 30, 2018
142
200
170
Good. I hope more companies follow the lead of Apple and other platforms that have taken similar stances.
Lets play a game. Imagine you are hired by Tim Cook to head up a brand new team dedicated to hate speech moderation. Which of these examples would you decide to take action on and remove from the platform?

1. People on Twitter that make negative remarks about white people. Yes or No?

2. People that use the language in the red boxes about animals. Yes or No?

3. Someone that posts the FBI Crime Statistics to make an arguement about race. Yes or No?

4. Richard Spencer's social media accounts. Yes or No?

5. Antifa social media accounts. Yes or No?

6. Proud Boys social media accounts. Yes or No?

7. ISIS social media accounts. Yes or No?

8. Someone making fun of the #Metoo movement by calling a woman that recently accused a powerful man a liar on Twitter. Yes or No?

9. Remove Twitter from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreading hate speech. Yes or No?

10. Remove Gab from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreeding hate speech. Yes or No?

11. A rap song on iTunes that calls women whores and advocates for violence against them. Yes or No?

12. A film being sold on iTunes that glorifies the south and slavery during the Civil War. Yes or No?

Note: Anyone can play this game, but I'm especially interested in the responses from people like Nobody Important and Ssolitare that are showing support for Apple's decision.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,387
245
Hate Speech by definition does in fact exist.
hate speech
noun

: speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people
Lol, by this definition most of the militant far-left rhetoric should be considered "hate speech".

If you go out and preach that extermination of certain peoples is okay then yes absolutely that is hate speech.
Incitement to violence is not the same as hate speech. "I hate all Nazis" is not the same as saying "all Nazis need to be punched". It's perfectly fine to hate things, but it's usually not fine to act on it. I find it funny that it's usually those who are decrying "hate speech" the loudest are usually the very same people getting high on their own virtuous hate.
 
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
Speech that foments a society and culture in which minorities - muslims hispanics, black people, gays, transsexuals - feel threatened isn't protected. You don't like it? Move to an island where you can spew venomous hate to your heart's content. Here in the US, where unfettered speech was once foolishly protected, we are beginning to put an end to unchallenged platforms of expression that are used by people whose sole aim is to galvanize the public for genocidal intent. History will not be repeated.
Are you a troll account? "Where unfettered speech was once foolishly protected"? Don't like it? Move? Seriously? You want us to move away because we agree with the founding principle of this country? You think history won't be repeated by... authoritarian control over what people think and say? Have you ever read a history book?
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
Lets play a game. Imagine you are hired by Tim Cook to head up a brand new team dedicated to hate speech moderation. Which of these examples would you decide to take action on and remove from the platform?

1. People on Twitter that make negative remarks about white people. Yes or No?

2. People that use the language in the red boxes about animals. Yes or No?

3. Someone that posts the FBI Crime Statistics to make an arguement about race. Yes or No?

4. Richard Spencer's social media accounts. Yes or No?

5. Antifa social media accounts. Yes or No?

6. Proud Boys social media accounts. Yes or No?

7. ISIS social media accounts. Yes or No?

8. Someone making fun of the #Metoo movement by calling a woman that recently accused a powerful man a liar on Twitter. Yes or No?

9. Remove Twitter from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreading hate speech. Yes or No?

10. Remove Gab from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreeding hate speech. Yes or No?

Note: Anyone can play this game, but I'm especially interested in the responses from people like Nobody Important and Ssolitare that are showing support for Apple's decision.
What the fuck is this gibberish. Why would even the most unflattering definition of hate speech have anything to do with non-immutable characteristics?
 

EHuntingon

Neo Member
Jul 30, 2013
38
42
250
Their platform their rules.
I'm not sure which side of the issue you're on, but this statement is the most correct one in this thread. It doesn't really matter if the rules are applied unevenly, or even if the rules are in a state of flux. It's Apple's platform, they can do what they want with it.

I'm not happy with Apple being the arbiter of morality and speech, but it's their platform. Unless, or until, a government body wades in and makes some laws, we're stuck with companies policing themselves and determining the rules and punishments based on their internal decisions. The only real option is to use other platforms, and make it known why you aren't using Apple's platform anymore.
 
Likes: whiskeystrike
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,387
245
Here in the US, where unfettered speech was once foolishly protected, we are beginning to put an end to unchallenged platforms of expression that are used by people whose sole aim is to galvanize the public for genocidal intent.
What does each and every authoritarian and totalitarian political regime have in common?

The abolition of unfettered speech

History will not be repeated.
Oh I'm sure it will, thanks to fools who have learned nothing from history, such as yourself.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
What does each and every authoritarian and totalitarian political regime have in common?

The abolition of unfettered speech



Oh I'm sure it will, thanks to fools who have learned nothing from history, such as yourself.
Oh stop being dramatic.

This is a correction against morons who took things too far. It likely applies to a tiny subset of people.

But we'll see how Apple plans to take action on this.
 
Last edited:
Aug 12, 2008
1,740
51
750
Does this deplatforming include musical and film artists?

Will music promoting violence and hate against all demographics be removed?

Because there are a number of contemporary musical acts and movies considered to be great and classic that may not pass a true moral muster Apple is espousing.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Zangiefy360

Knch

Member
Jan 12, 2009
260
2
630
Belgium
Armageddon is the belief all non-believers will perish in a global genocide at the hands of god and his angels.
People also use the term "Jesus saves" or "repent" as an allusion to such impending doom.

Preaching Armageddon is exactly preaching about the extermination of a group of people. Do you really believe Christians are preaching about their own death at Armageddon?
"They are going to die because x" is exactly the same as "Go kill them because of x" to you?!
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,266
3,871
315
What the fuck is this gibberish. Why would even the most unflattering definition of hate speech have anything to do with non-immutable characteristics?
Again. What would you say it is when a verrified twitter user with lets say 100k followers tells white women who are pregnant with white boys to visit an abortion center?

Hate speech or not?

Note she also did mark the word white
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
15,888
1,286
470
Brampton, Ontario
"They are going to die because x" is exactly the same as "Go kill them because of x" to you?!
Well the Bible already contains several text that does call for the death of people, and Islam takes it one step further.

So if the argument you want is "does hate speech apply to actions?" then clearly holy books should be seen as instruction manuals to cause hate?

We also have the entire history of religion to show us that when left alone, yes, people will cause harm or call for the death people in the name of their god.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,266
3,871
315
Apr 8, 2009
19,969
677
380
He said disdain for free speech, which is fairly evident.
So nobody’s free speech is being infringed?

newest example

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...lawsuit-will-pay-70-000-to-conservative-group

one example goes even further

Under these terms, UC Berkeley will no longer be allowed to place a 3 p.m. curfew on conservative events or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving left-leaning speakers access to preferred parts of campus.
So state actor UC Berkeley was infringing free speech and no longer will. Why is this reason to catastrophize about Tim Cook?
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
Before you make blanket statements that a certain race is responsible for a lot of bad stuff, it'd be useful to provide some kind of evidence. Saying an entire race is a huge problem is essentially racism...citations needed.
Lets play a game. Imagine you are hired by Tim Cook to head up a brand new team dedicated to hate speech moderation. Which of these examples would you decide to take action on and remove from the platform?

1. People on Twitter that make negative remarks about white people. Yes or No?
Define negative remarks about white people. I think a nuanced understanding of social and historical context, when responding to "negative remarks about white people," is required before punitive action is justified. Most toxic people in our society are..white. Most of our social ills are caused by...white people. The reason we haven't advanced as a race, on a humanistic level, is because of..white people. So, looking at her comment and taking it as a blanket condemnation of white people, with a desire to "cancel" them, is an interpretation made by someone who is probably not arguing in good faith.

2. People that use the language in the red boxes about animals. Yes or No?
Not a fan of PETA. Won't get an argument from me. They seem to care more about animals than the homeless, the war ravaged, and other humans who're sentient enough to experience a suffering that is orders of magnitude worse than what a chicken endures before it's turned into a dish on the takeout menu of a Chinese restaurant.

3. Someone that posts the FBI Crime Statistics to make an arguement about race. Yes or No?
FBI Crime Statistics are usually posted by people who don't believe there is any racial bias in arrests, prosecutions and incarcerations - people, again, who probably aren't arguing in good faith.

4. Richard Spencer's social media accounts. Yes or No?
Yes. He's an advocate of genocide and is actively campaigning to see his vision realized.

5. Antifa social media accounts. Yes or No?
No. They're opponents of the rising tide of fascism that is now threatening to unseat any semblance of democracy in the Western world.

[quote[6. Proud Boys social media accounts. Yes or No?[/quote]

Yes. They're modern day brownshirts lending themselves to the service of fascists.

7. ISIS social media accounts. Yes or No?
Yes, they're religious extremists who commit acts of terror for the purpose of indoctrinating millions within their hateful and archaic worldview.

8. Someone making fun of the #Metoo movement by calling a woman that recently accused a powerful man a liar on Twitter. Yes or No?
No. I may not agree with them, but critics of the #Metoo movement have a right to not immediately jump to conclusions about the men who're accused.

9. Remove Twitter from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreading hate speech. Yes or No?
All forms of deplatforming, assuming they effectively silence hatemongers and limit the capacity of their views to spread, are welcome.

10. Remove Gab from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreeding hate speech. Yes or No?
Yes. Gab is a hub for the spread of genocidal hatred. It's a community of active, as seen in the attack on the synagogue, and aspiring terrorists.

11. A rap song on iTunes that calls women whores and advocates for violence against them. Yes or No?
No. I have the right not to listen to it, but I don't believe in the infringement of that artists speech.

12. A film being sold on iTunes that glorifies the south and slavery during the Civil War. Yes or No?
Depends on context. If it's a film that unironically glorifies the confederacy and venerates the values it fought for, of course, it should be removed. It is promoting genocide.
 
Likes: Zangiefy360
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
In this thread:

People hoping to surreptitiously define the right kind of hate and trying to dodge being pinned down for it.
When cornered: fire a "WTF is this bullshit?!" flare or just duck-and-jab.
The bad kind of hate is hatred or incitement of hate or violence based on immutable characteristics.
The good kind of hate is hatred of shitty ideologies, like nazism, or various other ones that are so irredeemable and difficult to market they need to constantly come up with absurd things to be pedantically outraged about, like a company banning people from their private platform for being racist. Really nothing says more about conservatism as an ideology than the constant need to wheel out this absolute non-issue and manufacture outrage around it.
 
Last edited:
Likes: DaForest
Jun 3, 2013
4,367
1,687
410
Canada
So nobody’s free speech is being infringed?
The comment I posted before from Reddit:
"Free speech is a value, not a government decree. The fact that many of you can't tell the difference between them is telling."
Sure, these platforms can do all the banning they want. It reveals that they do not share the same value for free speech that many of us do.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,266
3,871
315
The bad kind of hate is hatred or incitement of hate or violence based on immutable characteristics.
The good kind of hate is hatred of shitty ideologies, like nazism, or various other ones that are so irredeemable and difficult to market they need to constantly come up with absurd things to be pedantically outraged about, like a company banning people from their private platform for being racist. Really nothing says more about conservatism as an ideology than the constant need to wheel out this absolute non-issue and manufacture outrage around it.
So shitting on modern feminism and Islam is also good hate? good to know. And yes these are shitty ideologies
 
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
If you could reliably be trusted to separate the ideology from the people practising it sure, problem is most of the time I don't feel like right wingers can do that with Islam especially. Look at Trump's travel ban.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,969
677
380
The comment I posted before from Reddit:


Sure, these platforms can do all the banning they want. It reveals that they do not share the same value for free speech that many of us do.
I don’t think you hold that value, actually. I don’t see any of the self-appointed freedom defenders complaining when youtube or twitter takes down an Isis video.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
19,969
677
380
One of the dumber things you have said recently which is impressive.
I’m not at your level yet, but i’m trying!

I have no problem with Isis posting videos that do not involve incitement to violence.
I didn’t ask if you had a problem. I pointed out that nobody who pretends there is a free speech crisis gave a shit when it was Isis’ free speech being suppressed.

Also “incitement to violence” is the same rationale the SJWs use to try to deplatform speech they don’t like so you may not want to go there.
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,367
1,687
410
Canada
I didn’t ask if you had a problem. I pointed out that nobody who pretends there is a free speech crisis gave a shit when it was Isis’ free speech being suppressed.
That's not my problem lol. I would defend their right to speak in those cases. No I'm not running to Youtube HQ to protest, but I don't do that when Shapiro is banned from a campus either. I'll talk about it when people are talking about it. You told me you knew what my beliefs are, and you're wrong.

Speech that incites violence is not protected, I'm fine with that despite the SJW inclination to define anything they don't agree with as violence or dog whistles.

(Although to be honest I actually don't fully understand why speech that is a call to violence is not protected. If someone tells me to go kill someone, it's just not going to work, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions.)
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
1,489
2,082
430
It's quite amazing to make it abundantly clear where people are going wrong and the fallacies that are undermining their position, and then watch them not only parade it as a badge of honour, but assume you are cheerleading for their methods.

Amazing. But not surprising.
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
(Although to be honest I actually don't fully understand why speech that is a call to violence is not protected. If someone tells me to go kill someone, it's just not going to work, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions.)
If the above was true ringleaders of criminal organizations would never have to serve jail time.
 
Oct 30, 2017
671
475
190
Lets play a game. Imagine you are hired by Tim Cook to head up a brand new team dedicated to hate speech moderation. Which of these examples would you decide to take action on and remove from the platform?

1. People on Twitter that make negative remarks about white people. Yes or No?
No

2. People that use the language in the red boxes about animals. Yes or No?
No

3. Someone that posts the FBI Crime Statistics to make an arguement about race. Yes or No?
No

4. Richard Spencer's social media accounts. Yes or No?
No

5. Antifa social media accounts. Yes or No?
No

6. Proud Boys social media accounts. Yes or No?
No

7. ISIS social media accounts. Yes or No?
No

8. Someone making fun of the #Metoo movement by calling a woman that recently accused a powerful man a liar on Twitter. Yes or No?
No

9. Remove Twitter from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreading hate speech. Yes or No?
No

10. Remove Gab from the app store for the select few that you qualify as spreeding hate speech. Yes or No?
No

11. A rap song on iTunes that calls women whores and advocates for violence against them. Yes or No?
No

12. A film being sold on iTunes that glorifies the south and slavery during the Civil War. Yes or No?
No

Note: Anyone can play this game, but I'm especially interested in the responses from people like Nobody Important and Ssolitare that are showing support for Apple's decision.
Free speech is free speech.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,969
677
380
That's not my problem lol. I would defend their right to speak in those cases. No I'm not running to Youtube HQ to protest, but I don't do that when Shapiro is banned from a campus either. I'll talk about it when people are talking about it. You told me you knew what my beliefs are, and you're wrong.
But we’re not talking about their right to speak. We’re talking about their (asserted) right to be published. I know you and others didnt care about it when it was Isis because we didn’t hear a peep about it and still don’t. It’s only when publishers decline to publish speech the right is sympathetic to that there is suddenly an invocation of this newfound principle.

Speech that incites violence is not protected, I'm fine with that despite the SJW inclination to define anything they don't agree with as violence or dog whistles.

(Although to be honest I actually don't fully understand why speech that is a call to violence is not protected. If someone tells me to go kill someone, it's just not going to work, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions.)
I don’t know either since incitement to violence is a legal exception and earlier you were insisting that you’re upholding a moral value, not a legal principle.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,387
245
Who’s being prohibited from speaking?
Maybe you would be so inclined to come up with an actual argument rather than asking questions to something I didn't even say.

So nobody’s free speech is being infringed?
As @Nymphae succinctly said, free speech is a value, one that merits being defended. I find the current pseudo-intellectual trend among the far-left to view free speech as the scapegoat for societal ills more worrisome than some Alex Jones level conspiracy nutter publishing his ridicule views on the world.

It is the right to free speech that put an end to the authoritarian regimes of the past, it is the right to free speech that facilitated the abolition of slavery and it is the right to free speech that gave women the right to vote. Seems to me, we need more of that stuff, warts and all, instead less of it.

A well education population has nothing, absolutely nothing to fear from your boogeymen. Unfortunately, the far-left seems to have long since forsaken that enlightenment ideal, opting instead for a more censorial approach. But hey, don't let that detract you from asking fallacious questions that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm sure it makes you feel mighty smart.

Hate speech is easily countered by reasoned speech.
Might wanna try that for a change.

I don’t think you hold that value, actually. I don’t see any of the self-appointed freedom defenders complaining when youtube or twitter takes down an Isis video.
Why is the difference between advocating violence and the right to free speech so difficult for you people to grasp? Your own militant rhetoric seems to have eroded your already poor grasp of terminology to the point that you can't even follow a simple line of argumentation.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
147
167
105
(Although to be honest I actually don't fully understand why speech that is a call to violence is not protected. If someone tells me to go kill someone, it's just not going to work, because ultimately I am responsible for my own actions.)
Technically, calls for violence is protected most of the time. Incitement (or which the fighting words doctrine falls under) is an exception to free speech in cases where speech intentionally causes or has a strong potential to cause an imminent breach of peace. That is, it is a very specific, narrowly defined exception, and they use something called the Brandenburg Test (or the imminent lawless action test) based on intent, imminence, and likelihood. So, shouting racial slurs at someone with the intent of getting them to punch you, but which is not likely to happen? Protected speech.
 
Jun 3, 2013
4,367
1,687
410
Canada
I know you and others didnt care about it when it was Isis because we didn’t hear a peep about it. It’s only when publishers decline to publish speech the right is sympathetic to that there is suddenly an invocation of this newfound principle.
Dude (lol), stop telling me what I care about. As I said before, I don't care that publishers can decide what content they publish. Should YT and Apple allow anything and everything that is considered legally protected speech? I say yes, always have. But if they want to ban shit, fine, go ahead. Their platform, sure, but those are not my values.

I'm not sure I get your point. Al Capone isn't the only criminal ringleader to ever exist.
I'm just saying, you can find ways to get them that don't require a conviction for inciting violence.
 
Last edited: