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

[Dude Abides]

“Antitrust action” requires a market. What market are Twitter and LinkedIn oligopolizing (other than making right wingers salty)?

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.

Edit:MS was using its monopoly in the OS market to monopolize the browser market. It’s not actually a violation simply to be a monopoly, you also have to be trying to stifle competition in the monopoly market or another one.

Also, antitrust law isn’t free speech. This is apples and oranges. An antitrust regulation against Apple might require it to carry ads for Samsung, not Alex Jones’ podcasts.

 

[matt404au]

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

I note that you conveniently dodged my question about the regulation of telephone companies in the 90s (FYI lefties were in favour of it if you need help deciding which way to lean).

Can you tell me the proportion of the population that owned a telephone when that happened?

 

[Liberty4all]

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

Nor will it be “everything I don’t like is hate speech” Democrat’s.

Thankfully we got the judiciary so hopefully somebody fights it up to the Supreme Court.

 

[TayTay]

I note that you conveniently dodged my question about the regulation of telephone companies in the 90s (FYI lefties were in favour of it if you need help deciding which way to lean).

Can you tell me the proportion of the population that owned a telephone when that happened?

Sorry I don’t actually know the history of it. If you tell me the year, maybe I can find a stat.

You also assume incorrectly that I think the telephone in the past is at all comparable to twitter now.

 

[matt404au]

Sorry I don’t actually know the history of it. If you tell me the year, maybe I can find a stat.

You also assume incorrectly that I think the telephone in the past is at all comparable to twitter now.

If you’re not aware of the history of such things, I don’t think you’re equipped to have an informed opinion on this issue. This is all easily Googlable.

 

[TayTay]

If you’re not aware of the history of such things, I don’t think you’re equipped to have an informed opinion on this issue. This is all easily Googlable.

Yeah I’m sure you definitely live by that same standard on everything you have an opinion on that we have argued about.

 

[Liberty4all]

Yeah I’m sure you definitely live by that same standard on everything you have an opinion on that we have argued about.

Matt404au knows the history as do I (I lived through that bullshit era). Which is why it’s entirely relevant.

 

[TayTay]

Matt404au knows the history as do I (I lived through that bullshit era). Which is why it’s entirely relevant.

I didn’t say he doesn’t on this specific issue. I believe he does. But I can absolutely guarantee you there have been many things that Matt has had an opinion on that he does not know the history of, so it’s a little laughable that he wants to try and say I need to follow that standard.

 

[Dude Abides]

The AT&T Bell breakup (which occurred in 1982-84, not the 90s) isn’t analogous. Your guys objection isnt that Google et al are preventing other search engines, video platforms, or social media sites from entering the market. That’s what antitrust law is about. You’re talking about something like Marsh v. Alabama. So you may want to cool it with pretending to be antitrust experts.

 

[matt404au]

Yeah I’m sure you definitely live by that same standard on everything you have an opinion on that we have argued about.

I didn’t say he doesn’t on this specific issue. I believe he does. But I can absolutely guarantee you there have been many things that Matt has had an opinion on that he does not know the history of, so it’s a little laughable that he wants to try and say I need to follow that standard.

The first time we ever disagreed, you respectfully complimented my knowledge of how the transgender condition forms in utero because you weren’t expecting me to know.

Seeing as you only care about trans issues and now apparently “hate speech” (likely because of its link to trans issues), you’re going to have to enlighten me on what history I have been ignorant of in our past encounters. Otherwise, it seems that you’re just salty and attacking my character because you’ve exhausted all of your other lines of code.

 

[TayTay]

The first time we ever disagreed, you respectfully complimented my knowledge of how the transgender condition forms in utero because you weren’t expecting me to know.

Seeing as you only care about trans issues and now apparently “hate speech” (likely because of its link to trans issues), you’re going to have to enlighten me on what history I have been ignorant of in our past encounters. Otherwise, it seems that you’re just salty and attacking my character because you’ve exhausted all of your other lines of code.

You mean doing what you do?

I’ve seen your opinions on black people and trans people. You definitely don’t know that history.

 

[matt404au]

The AT&T Bell breakup (which occurred in 1982, not the 90s) isn’t analogous. Your guys objection isnt that Google et al are preventing other search engines, video platforms, or social media sites from entering the market. That’s what antitrust law is about. You’re talking about something like Marsh v. Alabama. So you may want to cool it with pretending to be antitrust experts.

The main breakup was in 1984, but there were various forms of regulation going on since the 60s and through the 90s.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner-merger-breakup-bell-system-chart

Unless you’re an antitrust lawyer, I’d say you’re about as roughly as informed as we are. The argument ultimately boils down to the definition of “public square” and intent of free speech laws, so anything else is tangential.

 

[matt404au]

You mean doing what you do?

I’ve seen your opinions on black people and trans people. You definitely don’t know that history.

Which opinions are those?

 

[TayTay]

Which opinions are those?

You’ll have to forgive me, you say so many things I think are wrong constantly that it’s all kind of blended together into a general sense of what kind of person you are. But I know that sounds like a cop out. Sorry lol I don’t really try to retain the dumb things people say on here much longer after the conversation.

The point was, I know you’ve had opinions on black people, and definitely about trans people. I also know that you do not know the history of either of those groups. Doesn’t stop you from having opinions

 

[Dude Abides]

The main breakup was in 1984, but there were various forms of regulation going on since the 60s and through the 90s.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner-merger-breakup-bell-system-chart

Unless you’re an antitrust lawyer, I’d say you’re about as roughly as informed as we are. The argument ultimately boils down to the definition of “public square” and intent of free speech laws, so anything else is tangential.

I was instructed in antitrust law by Thomas Kauper and I've litigated several antitrust cases. Where did you get your training? That article doesnt support the assertion for which you cited it. In fact the telephone industry was largely (but not emtirely) unregulated until the Bell breakup. The phrase “public square” (like “public domain”) makes no sense in the antitrust context. Like i said, you should get off the antitrust angle because it really isn’t applicable here.

You’re better off arguing Twitter, etc. is like a “company town” as in the case i mentioned earlier. It’s not a good argument but it’s at least in the right area.

 

[OSC]

The main breakup was in 1984, but there were various forms of regulation going on since the 60s and through the 90s.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/24/13389592/att-time-warner-merger-breakup-bell-system-chart

Unless you’re an antitrust lawyer, I’d say you’re about as roughly as informed as we are. The argument ultimately boils down to the definition of “public square” and intent of free speech laws, so anything else is tangential.

Ridiculous that Trump can't block twitter harassers because it is a public space and it goes against free speech rights, but twitter can block anyone for any reason.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I don't think we need to nationalize Facebook. It would make the censorship issue go away, since being government run would force it to abide by the first amendment, but would introduce a bunch of other issues that could threaten democracy or our rights (for example, the government having access to our private personal photos would be a violation of our right against unlawful search and seizure - I'm not happy Facebook has all that stuff, but I'm less afraid of Facebook using it to make private citizens disappear).

I just think we need to show people that the right to free speech is not granted by the constitution, it is protected by it. It is an inalienable right that we are all born with and its protection is literally the cornerstone of the United States' government. Companies, like Facebook or Apple, which do not respect this right should be publicly called out for being Un-American. If Apple wants to get up on stage and proudly proclaim itself as Un-American, then so be it. I doubt their stocks would benefit though.

 

[matt404au]

I was instructed in antitrust law by Thomas Kauper and I've litigated several antitrust cases. Where did you get your training? That article doesnt support the assertion for which you cited it. In fact the telephone industry was largely (but not emtirely) unregulated until the Bell breakup. The phrase “public square” (like “public domain”) makes no sense in the antitrust context. Like i said, you should get off the antitrust angle because it really isn’t applicable here.

You’re better off arguing Twitter, etc. is like a “company town” as in the case i mentioned earlier. It’s not a good argument but it’s at least in the right area.

I'll have to take you at your word for that. If that is indeed true, why don't you spend more time educating and building up rather than constantly condescendingly tearing down? We would all love to learn from an actual lawyer.

Even if our terminology is not entirely correct, I am unwavered in my belief that the ideas we are trying to express are sound and that social media megacorps represent a threat to freedom of speech as intended by the first amendment.

 

[OSC]

I just think we need to show people that the right to free speech is not granted by the constitution, it is protected by it. It is an inalienable right that we are all born with and its protection is literally the cornerstone of the United States' government. Companies, like Facebook or Apple, which do not respect this right should be publicly called out for being Un-American. If Apple wants to get up on stage and proudly proclaim itself as Un-American, then so be it. I doubt their stocks would benefit though.

Indeed people forget, the constitution does not limit the rights of citizens it limits the government. We have inalienable rights far broader than what is enshrined therein, our rights do not emerge from the laws but are taken to be natural and self evident, that was the original intent.

If the landscape changes, it should be made such that our rights are not denied. The government should not be able to regulate away the rights of its citizens, nor should private entities be able to collude and deprive the citizens of their fundamental rights.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I sort of feel like corporations are the ultimate loophole. The fact that they are considered people in the eyes of the law an allowed speech is aburd. The government can't censor you, but corporations can. Who cares if these corporations operate in the same capacity as a government would, and in many cases, supplant the government wholesale? Unlawful search and seizure? Private entities, bitches! Suck it!

 

[matt404au]

I don't think we need to nationalize Facebook. It would make the censorship issue go away, since being government run would force it to abide by the first amendment, but would introduce a bunch of other issues that could threaten democracy or our rights (for example, the government having access to our private personal photos would be a violation of our right against unlawful search and seizure - I'm not happy Facebook has all that stuff, but I'm less afraid of Facebook using it to make private citizens disappear).

I just think we need to show people that the right to free speech is not granted by the constitution, it is protected by it. It is an inalienable right that we are all born with and its protection is literally the cornerstone of the United States' government. Companies, like Facebook or Apple, which do not respect this right should be publicly called out for being Un-American. If Apple wants to get up on stage and proudly proclaim itself as Un-American, then so be it. I doubt their stocks would benefit though.

I haven't seen anyone calling for nationalisation of Facebook, Twitter, etc.; rather, regulation to ensure that the intent of free speech laws is being maintained as technology evolves.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'll have to take you at your word for that. If that is indeed true, why don't you spend more time educating and building up rather than constantly condescendingly tearing down? We would all love to learn from an actual lawyer.

Even if our terminology is not entirely correct, I am unwavered in my belief that the ideas we are trying to express are sound and that social media megacorps represent a threat to freedom of speech as intended by the first amendment.

Maybe look back at your sneering exchange with TayTay and heal thyself, physician. You guys don’t seem particularly interested in learning anything that contradicts your pre-formed beliefs. For example, I just pointed out that you kinda don’t really know what you’re talking about, yet you remain “unwavering in [your] belief” that you’re right. What use would it be to point out the state action doctrine or that the first amendment has the word congress in it when the fundamental goal is to own the SJWs by any means available?

 

[Sacred]

A normal human being can fairly easily spot hate speech when presented with it so I wouldn't worry too much.

This is not true at all, the lines become more blurred everyday. Hate speech now is just a tool to get rid of content that they don't want people to see. It's forced censorship that is literally going to keep expanding and expanding. Steve Jobs is literally rolling in his grave for what Tim Cook has done to his company.

 

[ssolitare]

I haven't seen anyone calling for nationalisation of Facebook, Twitter, etc.; rather, regulation to ensure that the intent of free speech laws is being maintained as technology evolves.

I think you guys should vote with your feet and make another platform popular. Honestly the government regulating free speech will probably work against conservatives in the future

 

[TayTay]

I think you guys should vote with your feet and make another platform popular. Honestly the government regulating free speech will probably work against conservatives in the future

This is the honest to God truth.

A completely free speech future is NOT good for the future of conservatives

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

A normal human being can fairly easily spot hate speech when presented with it so I wouldn't worry too much.

Can't believe I missed this one. Let's play "Hate Speech or Free Speech?":

"Sandy Hook is a government conspiracy to confiscate our guns. It never happened. It's a hoax."

"Elite government officials are using their power in office in order to run a secret sex trade involving children."

"The Nazis did not exterminate 6 million Jews during WW2. That is Zionist propaganda."

"Illegal immigration is causing criminals to cross our border, increasing occurrences of rape and violence."

"Statistically speaking, black people have an average of 99 IQ, while white people have an average of 100."

"Men who believe they are women are fighting objective reality and I won't be complicit in their mental disorder."

"GamerGate is about ethics in journalism."

"Islam has dangerous and backwards beliefs about women and homosexuals, and openly advocates for pedophilia."

Each one of these is something that has gotten a person or community kicked off of Facebook, Reddit, PayPal, or even NeoGaf (back in the day). Alright, normal human, it should be fairly easy to spot the hate speech in the comments presented here to you. Enlighten us.

 

[matt404au]

Maybe look back at your sneering exchange with TayTay and heal thyself, physician. You guys don’t seem particularly interested in learning anything that contradicts your pre-formed beliefs. For example, I just pointed out that you kinda don’t really know what you’re talking about, yet you remain “unwavering in [your] belief” that you’re right. What use would it be to point out the state action doctrine or that the first amendment has the word congress in it when the fundamental goal is to own the SJWs by any means available?

You will have to be specific because I do not recall sneering at any point.

I am interested in learning from you if: a) you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, b) don't act like a condescending prick, and c) don't constantly misrepresent arguments. You seem to be attempting to do a but not b or c.

 

[matt404au]

I think you guys should vote with your feet and make another platform popular. Honestly the government regulating free speech will probably work against conservatives in the future

Again, that's not what's being asked. We are not asking for the government to regulate free speech itself but instead to regulate social media giants that are undermining the intent of it in the first place.

 

[ssolitare]

Again, that's not what's being asked. We are not asking for the government to regulate free speech itself but instead to regulate social media giants that are undermining the intent of it in the first place.

Right, and I'm still saying the same thing. It's tempting, but I don't think it's the answer. This is solvable without the government.

 

[OSC]

A completely free speech future is NOT good for the future of conservatives

The reason why censorship is sought, is because reality itself is found troublesome or offensive to the feelings of some. That is how facts, and real world evidence can be found troublesome.

Censorship is wrong.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

And in the end they will lose both.

Right, and I'm still saying the same thing. It's tempting, but I don't think it's the answer. This is solvable without the government.

No, there are current regulations in place making free market competition difficult. Alternatives were blocked at the level of hosting, payment processors and domain registrars. On top of that word is many of these big entities are colluding with advertisers too, and perhaps even blackmailing them, to remove them from controversial content providers.

 

[RedVIper]

This is the honest to God truth.

A completely free speech future is NOT good for the future of conservatives

1. Why do you believe this to be the case?

2.If you're left leaning, and belive that free speech would be bad for conservatives, why not let them have it?

 

[Dunki]

Right, and I'm still saying the same thing. It's tempting, but I don't think it's the answer. This is solvable without the government.

But not without laws. I bring it up all the time but you can not blacklist one ideology for saying shit you do not like while ignoring the other one who does the same shit.

Right now it seems that something is ok or not depending on the ideology this person follows. most important to me would be the issue of acceptance of violence towards people you do not like. Example Antifa which are not only encouraged by media but also celebrated

 

[hargwood]

Yet I still browse /pol/ on my IPhoneTM

They are just cracking down on a number of things on the App Store to ensure that their family friendly image is upheld. All about image for the shareholders. Anyone actually thinking Tim Cook gives a fuck about anything but money and maybe Thursday afternoon golf needs a brain transplant.

 

[llien]

Apple talking about morale always made me chuckle.

You trying to pretend it doesn't exist is ridiculous even for you.

I find censoring "hate speech" to do more harm than good, but in your case, must notice how inconsistent your stance is. E.g.:

Why can’t we hate men?

just turned down a debate with a fairly well known Marxist because "he finds his ideas offensive"

May I ask for a citation of this? Not some 10 minute youtube by a strange looking dude.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

None of this is a Free Speech issue until the government starts prosecuting people for it. Apple has their right to run their app store as they see fit, just as I have the right to not do business with Apple.

 

[Neon Noire]

May I ask for a citation of this? Not some 10 minute youtube by a strange looking dude.

There is literally a clip of Peterson about 5 minutes into the video saying that exact thing. Why even bother responding at this point? You've shown total unwillingness to give your opponent even a basic level of credence. Just to circlejerking?

 

[llien]

None of this is a Free Speech issue until the government starts prosecuting people for it.

That's a long dead horse at the moment.
Free Speech is something much more fundamental than US constitution and can be spotted in UN's charter of basic human rights.

The act of banning someone from the platform that merely allows people to connect is an act of censorship. For illegal shit there are governments. Banning people that CEOs of certain companies do not like should be illegal.

You've shown total unwillingness to give your opponent even a basic level of credence. Just to circlejerking?

I didn't say it didn't happen, just found linking weirdo youtubers to prove the point a bit... weird.
Not to say, spending 10 minutes of my life on watching unlikable youtuber share his views that I couldn't care less about.

 

[Dunki]

None of this is a Free Speech issue until the government starts prosecuting people for it. Apple has their right to run their app store as they see fit, just as I have the right to not do business with Apple.

No it is still censorship. People need to get rid of the idea that censorship can only enforced through the government.

With Products who almost have a monopoly on market sectors you basically can destroy a product person etc. Like when Microsoft tried not to allow google chrome as a supported browser for Windows.

they can also say it is their product they can decide but it is not as easy as it sounds.

 

[llien]

Peterson about 5 minutes into the video saying that exact thing.

Watched 5:00 through 7:00.
JP talks about Marxists.
The youtube dude talks about how Peterson broke his own rules by refusing to debate some Marxist.

Soo... where is the source please?

 

[Neon Noire]

I didn't say it didn't happen, just found linking weirdo youtubers to prove the point a bit... weird.
Not to say, spending 10 minutes of my life on watching unlikable youtuber share his views that I couldn't care less about.

Well this one is only 5 minutes long but the youtuber in it is doubly unlikeable


Peterson being a coward in a roundabout way

 

[llien]

Well this one is only 5 minutes long but the youtuber in it is doubly unlikeable

Would you mind stating exactly when JP states that in the linked video? I don't want to watch yet another video to figure that in fact, he doesn't.

 

[Neon Noire]

Hahahahaha
I see you subscribe to the same argumentative style as him. "If I don't acknowledge it it didn't happen." Very popular with conservative debaters in get.

 

[llien]

@Neon Noire
You are mistaking me for someone I'm not.
I'm for strict gun control.
"Pro-choice" (within limits though, certainly not 8+ month into pregnancy, although medical needs should of course allow that too)
Heck, I'm not even american!

Just trying to figure if the video where JP himself states he "wouldn't debate a Marxist because he finds his ideas offensive" (literally your words) really exists.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Shitterson just turned down a debate with a fairly well known Marxist because "he finds his ideas offensive"


You should do some research on these grifters before parroting their talking points.

Do you believe that saying things out loud or in the written form makes them true? This is absolute nonsense.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

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.

Apple better start banning gangster rap music from the 80s and 90s before they commit a sin.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How many people in here against regulating these "private, yet public square" domains were for "net neutrality" and other various regulations on private businesses under the Obama administration?

And vise/versa?

 

[kiunchbb]

I personally ignore all video reply in a discussion, especially in a forum. If you can't bother to express idea in writing, I won't bother to waste time on you.

 

[Blood Borne]

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.

Then you don’t believe in capitalism/free markets.

 

[RedVIper]

Then you don’t believe in capitalism/free markets.

You can have capitalism and still have regulations in place. That's like saying you can't have socialist policies in place without going full commies.

 

[DaForest]

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.

It's easy to defend a genocidal maniac's right to free speech when you have the luxury of not being among the groups that their hate is targeting. Many of us have no such luxury, which is why you see this upsurge of resistance against the far-right. You are drawing an equivalency between people who oppose racism and those who support it, groups who welcome the inclusion of minorities and those who seek their liquidation, politicians who sponsor policy aimed towards improving the health of our planet and those whose policy has commandeered the future of mankind and sent it careening off a cliff.