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

Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Asking people to not play music at 3AM is not stepping on their right to free speech formally speaking but the police coming to tell them to stop under the threat of violence or detainment absolutely is. Society has made its peace with that sentiment in the same sense that inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater is also not protected by free speech, that is, the potential harm is greater than any good. That is what is being argued by those who would restrict hate speech, not simply a matter of "I don't like it".

Also, I would redirect you to my sentiment that I feel the same as you but if under a hypothetical scenario where racists used democratic processes and the "marketplace of ideas" to gain leverage in society then those systems carry an inherent risk and are perhaps at fault. Democracy and rational thought must be given priority but in the instance that societies are abused by ill-doers (Nazi Germany) then violence is the only practical recourse from then on out. We're not anywhere close to that of course but the belief that certain bad groups would take advantage of our skepticism is not illogical.
Completely wrong. Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Playing loud music at 3 AM is not a form of speech just as making incessant noises at your political opponents as they try to eat dinner in a public place is also not a form of free speech.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Hahaha these poor snow flakes spout free market but once it bites in the in the ass they throw a tantrum and are saying that private companies HAVE TO host there content . Tho im not suprised hypocrisy has always been the right strong point.
How many times do I have to explain that these social media megacorps have redefined the public square? Laws need to adapt to meet changing technology and the intent of free speech laws is no longer being met.

It's hilarious that you types will cry about how the second amendment needs to be changed because it was written when people were using muskets but you refuse to extend that logic to the first amendment.
 
Dec 3, 2013
15,411
7,441
555
How many times do I have to explain that these social media megacorps have redefined the public square? Laws need to adapt to meet changing technology and the intent of free speech laws is no longer being met.

It's hilarious that you types will cry about how the second amendment needs to be changed because it was written when people were using muskets but you refuse to extend that logic to the first amendment.
Especially when the 2nd was designed and placed in such a way to protect the 1st. I am starting to see (been seeing) a pattern here. :pie_thinking:
 
Apr 21, 2012
15,881
1,283
470
Brampton, Ontario
Hahaha these poor snow flakes spout free market but once it bites in the in the ass they throw a tantrum and are saying that private companies HAVE TO host there content . Tho im not suprised hypocrisy has always been the right strong point.
TBH, I don't think the problem is the free market.

But rather, current corporations in general do not share the same Western values.

Companies should be allowed to profit, but they should also invest back in their nation and support its values.

Look at Japan for example. They still practice the free market, but Japanese corporations still act in their nations best interests. They feel proud to be Japanese.

In the West, such values don't exist anymore. Western companies only exist to make money and nothing else. When companies like Apple "virtue signal" about hate speech, don't take it as a sign they're actually on your side and care about being progressive. They're just being opportunists and trying to grab money from you. If there was a bigger market, they would drop you in an instant because it was always money they're after, not progressive points.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
91
100
80
Society has made its peace with that sentiment in the same sense that inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater is also not protected by free speech, that is, the potential harm is greater than any good.
You should check on that yelling fire in a crowded theater thing. I'm like 95% sure that ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court a decade later, with one of the judges explicitly calling it one of the worst first amendment decisions ever made.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
I think the same hate/free speech argument stands that people won't sit by and let you go on a bigoted tirade.

It's nice to want that, but a lot of society moves against that.
The problem is that the term "bigot" is being so egregiously misused to the point of being meaningless. Don't want to date a trans person? Bigot. Don't want to refer to someone as xie or xir? Bigot. Don't like purple-haired owlkins fighting on the frontlines in your totally historically-accurate WW2 game? Bigot. Should these examples all be considered forms of hate speech?

You would probably handwave this away as some kind of slippery slope argument though.
 
Jun 13, 2017
236
265
185
Asking people to not play music at 3AM is not stepping on their right to free speech formally speaking but the police coming to tell them to stop under the threat of violence or detainment absolutely is. Society has made its peace with that sentiment in the same sense that inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater is also not protected by free speech, that is, the potential harm is greater than any good. That is what is being argued by those who would restrict hate speech, not simply a matter of "I don't like it".

Also, I would redirect you to my sentiment that I feel the same as you but if under a hypothetical scenario where racists used democratic processes and the "marketplace of ideas" to gain leverage in society then those systems carry an inherent risk and are perhaps at fault. Democracy and rational thought must be given priority but in the instance that societies are abused by ill-doers (Nazi Germany) then violence is the only practical recourse from then on out. We're not anywhere close to that of course but the belief that certain bad groups would take advantage of our skepticism is not illogical.
No it isn't you aren't suppressing their ideas by telling them to use headphones. That's like saying people can drive as fast as they can "as an expression of their free speech". So again, calls for violence? That's already under the law as far as I know. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express your ideas, it's defend speech, not action.

I'm not saying it illogical, I'm saying that I believe the risk of oppressing free speech and falling under authoritarianism is much greater than some autistic idiots on both sides of the spectrum.

Edit:Awnsering to the post below

I don't think liberals want to ban it just because they don't like it (I mean maybe some but wtv), I disagree that banning it is in anyway a net positive for society.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
1,862
212
525
Completely wrong. Your liberty to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Playing loud music at 3 AM is not a form of speech just as making incessant noises at your political opponents as they try to eat dinner in a public place is also not a form of free speech.
That's exactly my point.
"Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose tip begins" is what is being espoused. The idea is that society is at risk by simply allowing racists, white supremacists, ethno-nationalists and their ilk to be allowed a spot in the public discourse.
For the last time I'll state that this is not MY opinion.

Setting up a strawman in that liberals against hate speech is about "I don't like thing" is a complete misrepresentation.

I want to see qualitative and quantitative evidence that specific actions allowing specific opinions are harmful and until sufficient evidence is presented it's an argument based on conjecture and what-ifs.
 
Last edited:
Likes: RedVIper
Jan 12, 2009
15,333
1,059
735
The problem is that the term "bigot" is being so egregiously misused to the point of being meaningless. Don't want to date a trans person? Bigot. Don't want to refer to someone as xie or xir? Bigot. Don't like purple-haired owlkins fighting on the frontlines in your totally historically-accurate WW2 game? Bigot. Should these examples all be considered forms of hate speech?

You would probably handwave this away as some kind of slippery slope argument though.
Is your main worry is that the line will keep getting pulled back?
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Is your main worry is that the line will keep getting pulled back?
It already has been pulled back too far and will continue to be. I don't know how anyone can suggest with a straight face that it hasn't when people like mild-mannered Dave Rubin keep getting demonetised for interviewing the "wrong" people.
 
Likes: bigedole
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
That's exactly my point.

For the last time I'll state that this is not MY opinion.

Setting up a strawman in that liberals against hate speech is about "I don't like thing" is a complete misrepresentation.

I want to see qualitative and quantitative evidence that specific actions allowing specific opinions are harmful and until sufficient evidence is presented it's an argument based on conjecture and what-ifs.
Well then it wasn't expressed very clearly.

I wouldn't call those people liberals because their actions are highly illiberal.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
If you didn’t want companies to be able to have grand monopoly’s on social interaction and using their free market rights to ban certain content you love seeing for some reason, then you should have done something to stop these companies a looooong time ago.

In other words, it’s republican conservative politics and the free market, or no websites/companies removing whatever they please. You can’t have both.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
If you didn’t want companies to be able to have grand monopoly’s on social interaction and using their free market rights to ban certain content you love seeing for some reason, then you should have done something to stop these companies a looooong time ago.

In other words, it’s republican conservative politics and the free market, or no websites/companies removing whatever they please. You can’t have both.
Welcome back.

What do you think about historical regulation of the telephone industry and how it relates to social media giants?
 
Jun 13, 2017
236
265
185
If you didn’t want companies to be able to have grand monopoly’s on social interaction and using their free market rights to ban certain content you love seeing for some reason, then you should have done something to stop these companies a looooong time ago.

In other words, it’s republican conservative politics and the free market, or no websites/companies removing whatever they please. You can’t have both.
If only people weren't the strawman you make them out to be...people can be on the right and have very different opinions about a a bunch of subjects, people on the left can disagree on a bunch of subjects.
If you engage with people as if they were this caricature you have in head you'll never be able to understand their side of the argument.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,333
1,059
735
It already has been pulled back too far and will continue to be. I don't know how anyone can suggest with a straight face that it hasn't when people like mild-mannered Dave Rubin keep getting demonetised for interviewing the "wrong" people.

Free-Speech is just ill-defined. Part of it conflicts with the realities changing societies, and the other part can't be agreed upon because the line is so relative.

So I'm thinking that freedom of speech will balance itself, and this discussion is a part of that balance. If it steps out of line, like truly steps out of it, we'll crush it.

So on this topic, I don't see government interaction as necessary. You gotta let Apple do their thing. Talk about it as you will.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2016
300
34
200
Actually I see people saying that if private companies want to control content then they should lose their neutral party status that protects them from lawsuits.

The point being that they currently have their cake and want to eat it too.

Uhhh the reason they were given that protection was so that thet could moderate . Ignoring that even if you did remove section 230 you still can't force them to host because of good old citizen United gives Facebook freedom of speech and not talking is protected under it . Shrug remind me again which side wanted company's to be treated as people again ?

How many times do I have to explain that these social media megacorps have redefined the public square? Laws need to adapt to meet changing technology and the intent of free speech laws is no longer being met.

It's hilarious that you types will cry about how the second amendment needs to be changed because it was written when people were using muskets but you refuse to extend that logic to the first amendment.

Guess what just because you keep repating it doesn't make it true tho I'm sure trump has convinced you other wise. You just decided that since FB dosent want to host your shit that they somehow have changed public space and you want the goverment to have control over it ignoring the fact how on earth do you decided which company should be under control should neogaf be a public space ? Lol Comparing a bunch of man children unable to let go of there toys which are littearly causing mass murders to Joe not being able to post his discrediting of the holocaust on fb .
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Free-Speech is just ill-defined. Part of it conflicts with the realities changing societies, and the other part can't be agreed upon because the line is so relative.

So I'm thinking that freedom of speech will balance itself, and this discussion is a part of that balance. If it steps out of line, like truly steps out of it, we'll crush it.

So on this topic, I don't see government interaction as necessary. You gotta let Apple do their thing. Talk about it as you will.
No, it really isn’t. It only appears that way because quarter was given to ideologues who want to bend society to their will through nebulous definitions of “hate speech”.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Uhhh the reason they were given that protection was so that thet could moderate . Ignoring that even if you did remove section 230 you still can't force them to host because of good old citizen United gives Facebook freedom of speech and not talking is protected under it . Shrug remind me again which side wanted company's to be treated as people again ?




Guess what just because you keep repating it doesn't make it true tho I'm sure trump has convinced you other wise. You just decided that since FB dosent want to host your shit that they somehow have changed public space and you want the goverment to have control over it ignoring the fact how on earth do you decided which company should be under control should neogaf be a public space ? Lol Comparing a bunch of man children unable to let go of there toys which are littearly causing mass murders to Joe not being able to post his discrediting of the holocaust on fb .
 
Oct 30, 2017
662
466
190
The fact that people are arguing against free speech is so sad and scary. They are literally begging for their rights and freedom to be taken away. They’re willing to trade their freedom for a false sense of security. You people truly don’t know what you have. I curse the person(s) that indoctrinated you people with this disgusting ideology.

One day, you will really and truly get what you’re asking for. No free speech, no guns, super high taxes to fund all your social programs, high regulations, total open borders, self identification (switch your race and gender on the fly) and government dishing out social justice (deciding what each group gets and deserves). It is only then you will see the evil and madness that will ensue from your ideology.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
If only people weren't the strawman you make them out to be...people can be on the right and have very different opinions about a a bunch of subjects, people on the left can disagree on a bunch of subjects.
If you engage with people as if they were this caricature you have in head you'll never be able to understand their side of the argument.
Doesn’t really have any relevance to what I said. Just as you can desire unchecked free expression (except in some cases of course) and I be okay with it not being so. Same for apple. Nothing we can do to stop them.
 
Jun 13, 2017
236
265
185
This is a private policy, so no. Can we even sue them over this?
The US doesn't even acknowledge the existence of hate speech, it's not a thing in the eyes of the law, but you'd have to ask a layer.

Doesn’t really have any relevance to what I said. Just as you can desire unchecked free expression (except in some cases of course) and I be okay with it not being so. Same for apple. Nothing we can do to stop them.
But that's already the case in the US, like I said above hate speech doesn't exist, the only form of free speech that's limited by the law is free speech that calls for violence.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
62
24
85
I think there are accepted laws agreed upon by modern society, where people understand that a world free of Jewish influence is preferable to one where their attitudes and behaviors that marginalize ordinary Germans and promote the hate of German society and ideals. There's a reason Jews feel the walls closing in on them. Their views are retrograde, the kind that don't assist in the social and cultural progression of our race. If you hold views that Germans are not the master race, that racism against The Great Germanic people is acceptable, you will soon not be welcome in the circles of most German society. You can go join them in the camps and huddle with the rest of the people who don't want to join modern German civilization. But, right now, millions of us are getting fed up with the hate, Adolf Hitler included.

.....

I mean I barely had to change anything you said just change the target of your attack on who is "the danger of civilized society"

Which is why this kind of dehumanization rhetoric the left is spewing is a harbinger of terrible things that could come if we don't stand against it now.

Perhaps the irony of it all is the complete lack of self awareness you have that your words are simply a rewording so many authoritarians have used before to justify removing from society so called undesirables (deplorables one might say).

This is the reason so many of us defend freedom of speech and ideas and outright reject "Right side of history" bullshit that has been used countless times throughout history to enact mass murder.

The alternative is a repeat of the 20th centuries Cultural Revolution, political dissent camps and worse.
Another false equivalency, which tends be the only strategy people like you employ when debating these issues. Jews were innocents slaughtered by a regime of genocidal racists. Anti-fascists and the supposed "far left" oppose people whose views - denial of climate change (a proven existential threat), racism, xenophobia, hostility towards LGBT - are antithetical to the future of mankind. Likening the two, as if their ideological motives are morally comparable, is laughable.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,012
4,319
700
Australia
Another false equivalency, which tends be the only strategy people like you employ when debating these issues. Jews were innocents slaughtered by a regime of genocidal racists. Anti-fascists and the supposed "far left" oppose people whose views - denial of climate change (a proven existential threat), racism, xenophobia, hostility towards LGBT - are antithetical to the future of mankind. Likening the two, as if their ideological motives are morally comparable, is laughable.
We prefer “peoplekind”.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
Another false equivalency, which tends be the only strategy people like you employ when debating these issues. Jews were innocents slaughtered by a regime of genocidal racists. Anti-fascists and the supposed "far left" oppose people whose views - denial of climate change (a proven existential threat), racism, xenophobia, hostility towards LGBT - are antithetical to the future of mankind. Likening the two, as if their ideological motives are morally comparable, is laughable.
Oh I completely agree that the German regime were genocidal fascists. Yet your previous comments strangely echo them.

Strange that no?

Even your current post .. hypobolic “antithetical to the future of mankind (peoplekind please let’s watch the misogyny)”. What do we do to those individuals who are antithetical to the future of mankind (oops peoplekind)?

It’s like you never studied history. Countless times a group or ideology has been labeled, the individuals dehumanized and genocide enacted. Be it intellectuals in the Cultural Revolution under Mao or the kmen rouge in Vietnam, the Tutsi geonocide in Rawanda, the slaughter of political dissidents in the Soviet Union , the Uyghur rededucation camps in China .... all involved demunization of political opponents or opposing ideologies followed in general by mass slaughter.

Do you hear what you say and the Left’s rehtoric? “Don’t belong in civilized society”. “Antithetical to the future of mankind”. “The kind that don’t assist in the social and cultural progrsssion of our race”

I mean what the fuck is wrong with you? These are the same things Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the Viet Kong leadership, the North Korean leadership, and pretty much every horrible authoritarian Regressive government has ever said to justify jailing, torturing and killing its own citizens.

Your ideology is horrible and is what people died in WWII to prevent happening in the West. Our society is one of freedom, where people can say what they want and how they think. And yes that often means some pretty shitty speech too ... but the protection of speech on those we disagree with is what protects the speech of us all.
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
How are they acting as a megaphone? Are they promoting the podcasts? Putting it on the front page, going, "Yo, check this out, bro!" Or are they simply acting as a catalogue of podcasts? Because a catalogue of literally hundreds of thousands of podcasts that does not actively promote a specific one is, in no way, acting as a megaphone for anything.

As for ideas not being wiped from earth, Alex Jones has been banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, Apple (both podcasts and apps), and even PayPal. Gab has been banned by GoDaddy, PayPal, Stripe, Joyent, and had Microsoft web services ban them. Stormfront, after being kicked off Reddit and Facebook, had Cloudflare refuse to serve them. The idea that you can simply go somewhere else when nobody will host you or take payment for you is absurd when there is only a few companies basically running the entire internet (currently), and they all seem to operate with the same ideological bent.
They’re acting as a megaphone because they’re providing the means for the message to reach a much wider audience. Seems pretty obvious.

Is infowars still up? Why yes. Does gab still exist? Yes again. Even if they didn’t could Alex Jones still stand on the corner and hand out leaflets and talk about gay frogs? Yes. Could PepeMaga1488 or Andrew Anglin do the same about Jews controlling the world even if gab didnt exist? Yes. This isn’t free speech you’re arguing for. It’s the “freedom” to make someone else broadcast your speech. Compelled publication isn’t freedom.

If that's the case then everything that is said trough Apple platforms is endorsed by platform and they should be legally bound to it.
Ok, though I doubt Evilore would like that very much. It also seems counterproductive if you’re worried about stifling communication.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
Oh I completely agree that the German regime were genocidal fascists. Yet your previous comments strangely echo them.

Strange that no?

Even your current post .. hypobolic “antithetical to the future of mankind (peoplekind please let’s watch the misogyny)”. What do we do to those individuals who are antithetical to the future of mankind (oops peoplekind)?

It’s like you never studied history. Countless times a group or ideology has been labeled, the individuals dehumanized and genocide enacted. Be it intellectuals in the Cultural Revolution under Mao or the kmen rouge in Vietnam, the Tutsi geonocide in Rawanda, the slaughter of political dissidents in the Soviet Union , the Uyghur rededucation camps in China .... all involved demunization of political opponents or opposing ideologies followed in general by mass slaughter.

Do you hear what you say and the Left’s rehtoric? “Don’t belong in civilized society”. “Antithetical to the future of mankind”. “The kind that don’t assist in the social and cultural progrsssion of our race”

I mean what the fuck is wrong with you? These are the same things Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the Viet Kong leadership, the North Korean leadership, and pretty much every horrible authoritarian Regressive government has ever said to justify jailing, torturing and killing its own citizens.

Your ideology is horrible and is what people died in WWII to prevent happening in the West. Our society is one of freedom, where people can say what they want and how they think. And yes that often means some pretty shitty speech too ... but the protection of speech on those we disagree with is what protects the speech of us all.
What about this forum
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
They’re acting as a megaphone because they’re providing the means for the message to reach a much wider audience. Seems pretty obvious.

Is infowars still up? Why yes. Does gab still exist? Yes again. Even if they didn’t could Alex Jones still stand on the corner and hand out leaflets and talk about gay frogs? Yes. Could PepeMaga1488 or Andrew Anglin do the same about Jews controlling the world even if gab didnt exist? Yes. This isn’t free speech you’re arguing for. It’s the “freedom” to make someone else broadcast your speech. Compelled publication isn’t freedom.
Oh please. It’s more like the only phone company in town the 70s or 80s not letting you call long distance because they don’t like your political views. There’s a reason they were labeled a public utility and mass communication sites like Facebook or twitter should rightly be classified the same way,
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
Oh please. It’s more like the only phone company in town the 70s or 80s not letting you call long distance because they don’t like your political views. There’s a reason they were labeled a public utility and mass communication sites like Facebook or twitter should rightly be classified the same way,
It’s not at all like that. The phone company was the only means of vocal instant one to one telecommunication. You can communicate your ideas in an electronic format in many ways without using Facebbok or Twitter. In fact you’re doing so right now. If you were talking about an ISP you might have a point.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,333
1,059
735
Oh please. It’s more like the only phone company in town the 70s or 80s not letting you call long distance because they don’t like your political views. There’s a reason they were labeled a public utility and mass communication sites like Facebook or twitter should rightly be classified the same way,
No thanks. For one they aren't necessary for survival, they're just popular and two, this wouldn't be good for the market of innovation yadda yadda. Twitter won't be on top forever.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
If the laws were changed, what specific criteria would you suggest that a website needs to be classified as a “mass communication” and “public utility” site?
Ah I see what you mean.

1. A company in an oligopoly or monopoly situation where antitrust laws could apply
2. Interpreted as being “public square”

So Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc ? Yes
NeoGAF or Retardera? No
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
It’s not at all like that. The phone company was the only means of vocal instant one to one telecommunication. You can communicate your ideas in an electronic format in many ways without using Facebbok or Twitter. In fact you’re doing so right now. If you were talking about an ISP you might have a point.
Why are using a telephone? You know you could send a fax or telegram
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
A device or site unavailable by any other means utilized by the majority of the general populace for mass communication including political ideology.
Majority?

In the last reported quarter, the number of monthly active U.S. Twitter users amounted to 67 million, a decrease from 68 million in the previous period.

So not even a fifth of the country. And every other site you could name similarly would be even less people
 
Last edited:
Apr 8, 2009
19,937
654
380
Why are using a telephone? You know you could send a fax or telegram
Instant and vocal. The words were right there. Also FYI the telephone was invented long before the fax machine.

A bit ironic that a guy named Liberty4All wants to use the heavy hand of state power to force others to use their property to publish speech against their wishes.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
Majority?

In the last reported quarter, the number of monthly active U.S. Twitter users amounted to 67 million, a decrease from 68 million in the previous period.

So not even a fifth of the country. And every other site you could name similarly would be even less people
Only 67 million lol. Never mind that’s only US numbers and not counting the rest of the world.

You tell me of an equivalent service with the same reach. No? Because there isn’t one. Effectively a monopoly, or one could argue an oligopoly if taking twitter, fb, youtube, LinkedIn collectively. Ripe for antitrust action.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au
Oct 21, 2018
526
251
180
Only 67 million lol.

You tell me of an equivalent service with the same reach. No? Because there isn’t one. Effectively a monopoly, or one could argue an oligopoly if taking twitter, fb, youtube, LinkedIn collectively. Ripe for antitrust action.
which politicians do you think would possibly be in favor of that?

Because it certainly won’t be “net neutrality is actually bad because we want more money” Republicans
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,226
370
1,060
Instant and vocal. The words were right there. Also FYI the telephone was invented long before the fax machine.

A bit ironic that a guy named Liberty4All wants to use the heavy hand of state power to force others to use their property to publish speech against their wishes.
I fully supported the gov breaking MS balls over Explorer. While yes, in general I believe in capitalism, when it comes to monopolies I’m in full support of antitrust laws.
 
Likes: matt404au