What did Apple even hope to accomplish here? If this was some (extremely) ill-thought-out attempt at combating hate or misinformation don't they realize 90% of said content will be fed to users via YouTube/Reddit/Safari/other social media? Is it just abuse of power by low level employees?
It looks like some abuse of power. Pepe is as offensive as the ok-hand and thumbs-up emojis. All are used by people who align with far-right politics, and all are considered hate symbols by small groups while not recognized as such by most people.
But if we step back, we see another much more significant problem with Apple's efforts. They are trying to police communications between users of their products, even banning words on apps on their devices. It's easy to get distracted by the idea that Apple is the good guy just saving someone from being offended and forget that rich tech bros are deciding what the US should and shouldn't talk about.
What is more insidious is that they are so good at controlling how this is presented to their customers. If Apple said straight up - "some of the income we make from our sales goes into censoring certain conversations in the US," I'm sure not many people would be on board.
Finally, there is the entire topic of discussion related to ownership of our hardware. When we buy an iPhone, can we own it and use it as we please? Or must we submit to Apple's control of what software we can run on it? How much of the price we pay for such a product goes into anti-consumer practices like this? It's not just offensive things you can't run on an iPhone. There's a lot of software that's potentially life-saving that you can't. For example, many medical apps like custom continuous blood glucose sensor and closed-loop "artificial pancreas" software people with type one diabetes use (mostly on Android these days as getting that type of software on iOS is a tremendous hassle).
This whole thing feels like a proverbial boiling frog situation. Apple shareholders and executives move inch by inch, Pepe by Pepe, more and more into a position of authority for what is acceptable and what is not. Stories like banning Pepe make the news, but when they see people accepting this, they can deny a life-saving/improving app or two if their shareholders have a conflict of interest, let's say. No one would be okay with a tech company taking this action out of the blue, but when they create expectations that they are the authority on what we have on our phones and what we talk about, and people accept them as a de-facto authority, it's easy.
"only on apple devices" well no shit, they can't tell you what to do on Android devices. I suppose the point is that only apple asked them to do thos and not google, but it's a weird way to say it.
As another commenter mentioned, I'd be interested in the 20 terms that were banned. Surely they can post them on free speech bastion twitter for the world to judge?
Re: pepe, that is pretty pathetic on apple's part. I think moderating such indirect symbols of foolishness and trolling only gives it power.
I don't see why not. They will start doing that too. "We are blocking your app because it violates our content guidelines." What will an app dev do about it lol?
While restrictions exist in both stores, it's (currently) far less important to appear on the Google Play Store.
There are apps violating Google's content guidelines that you can usually just sideload. Those often even bring their own update mechanism. ...if you don't like that, there's full alternative stores as well.
Apple App Store restrictions are exceptionally bad because it's the only way to get the app on the phone. The gatekeeping makes denying an app access to the store much more consequential.
I meant that Apple can start requiring absolutely anything as a condition of being allowed on the app store. They can totally say "your app promotes hate speech, even if on other platforms, and so we are banning you from app store". They will just put an appropriate clause in their rules, if it doesn't exist already. That's it, you're breaking their rules.
I find it very hard to be outraged one way or the other over Apple not wanting a cartoon frog in an app. I get that we're all supposed to be upset that Apple is censoring Pepe, but...who cares?
Stupid or not it's about the principle. Today it's something stupid no one really cares about, but a standard is now set. Next thing you know they'll start limiting air drop to being enabled only for 10 minutes to limit discourse in China or some other country.. Wait a second.
The point being, standards are different depending on the app / provider. That's the bigger issue.
And Musk won't reinstate Alex Jones because Sandy Hook and "I care about children", but has reinstated Brett Stevens (who inspired and praised Anders Breivik, who slaughtered point blank dozens of kids).
Yet another example why Apple should be forced to allow other app stores. They have yet to keep one of their original promises to justify the gatekeeping. The app store is a cesspool - it's easier to find scam apps than the legitimate ones, gambling targeting children in the form of "games" run rampant and if you are a developer, good luck trying to build any sort of a relationship with your users.
It's an utter shit show.
Obviously YouTube is more equal than ‘LBRYcom odysee’. Just like when Firefox didn’t allow the use of Flash, except on youtube.com. It’s just common business sense, nobody wants to use a product that doesn’t allow access to YouTube.
Yeah according to the screenshot the censored content was just a mirror of the creator's YouTube channel, available on the iOS app. Different rules for different companies, ugh.
This tweet is in reply to Musk's revelation that Apple has stopped advertising on Twitter[1] while making an assertion that it must be because "they hate free speech in America". This puts Apple in the same free speech hating category as Chevrolet, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Ford, Jeep and others.[2]
The screenshots of the app review don't corroborate the "disallowed almost anything related to Covid, especially vaccines or human origins of the virus", but the Pepe the Frog[3] images could certainly run afoul of Apple's "Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content" restrictions[4]
The App Store Review's comment "We continue to find that your app or metadata includes content that some users may find upsetting, offensive, or otherwise objectionable" also makes it sound like they went around the block a couple of times with this and Odysee was either unwilling or unable to apply content restrictions.
Related, why does it seem like every time Musk rallies for free speech it's adjacent to some hateful dog whistle?
How so? Do you mean the caricature has been co-opted by far-right activists and provocateurs[1] to promote antisemitism while hiding behind a flimsy defense of ironic trolling?
Or do you mean that in the past decade the Internet has come to its senses and contemporary usage of the meme means: “I am posting this as an affirmation that I _should_ be able to post it, not that I’m a racist, so don’t question my motivation. I come in peace. ;);)”[2]
34 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 73.6 ms ] threadBut if we step back, we see another much more significant problem with Apple's efforts. They are trying to police communications between users of their products, even banning words on apps on their devices. It's easy to get distracted by the idea that Apple is the good guy just saving someone from being offended and forget that rich tech bros are deciding what the US should and shouldn't talk about.
What is more insidious is that they are so good at controlling how this is presented to their customers. If Apple said straight up - "some of the income we make from our sales goes into censoring certain conversations in the US," I'm sure not many people would be on board.
Finally, there is the entire topic of discussion related to ownership of our hardware. When we buy an iPhone, can we own it and use it as we please? Or must we submit to Apple's control of what software we can run on it? How much of the price we pay for such a product goes into anti-consumer practices like this? It's not just offensive things you can't run on an iPhone. There's a lot of software that's potentially life-saving that you can't. For example, many medical apps like custom continuous blood glucose sensor and closed-loop "artificial pancreas" software people with type one diabetes use (mostly on Android these days as getting that type of software on iOS is a tremendous hassle).
This whole thing feels like a proverbial boiling frog situation. Apple shareholders and executives move inch by inch, Pepe by Pepe, more and more into a position of authority for what is acceptable and what is not. Stories like banning Pepe make the news, but when they see people accepting this, they can deny a life-saving/improving app or two if their shareholders have a conflict of interest, let's say. No one would be okay with a tech company taking this action out of the blue, but when they create expectations that they are the authority on what we have on our phones and what we talk about, and people accept them as a de-facto authority, it's easy.
As another commenter mentioned, I'd be interested in the 20 terms that were banned. Surely they can post them on free speech bastion twitter for the world to judge?
Re: pepe, that is pretty pathetic on apple's part. I think moderating such indirect symbols of foolishness and trolling only gives it power.
I don't see why not. They will start doing that too. "We are blocking your app because it violates our content guidelines." What will an app dev do about it lol?
There are apps violating Google's content guidelines that you can usually just sideload. Those often even bring their own update mechanism. ...if you don't like that, there's full alternative stores as well.
Apple App Store restrictions are exceptionally bad because it's the only way to get the app on the phone. The gatekeeping makes denying an app access to the store much more consequential.
The point being, standards are different depending on the app / provider. That's the bigger issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
There are probably some modern day Celtic based religions too, should ban members of those too.
Can't have pagans spreading their supremacist symbols.
Other nations/religions have been using Swastika for about 2000 years.
Also, what if there is Hindu religious app (the app where you can listen to religious songs etc) with Swastika as it's logo.
"Principles" or the pot calling the kettle black
The screenshots of the app review don't corroborate the "disallowed almost anything related to Covid, especially vaccines or human origins of the virus", but the Pepe the Frog[3] images could certainly run afoul of Apple's "Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content" restrictions[4]
The App Store Review's comment "We continue to find that your app or metadata includes content that some users may find upsetting, offensive, or otherwise objectionable" also makes it sound like they went around the block a couple of times with this and Odysee was either unwilling or unable to apply content restrictions.
Related, why does it seem like every time Musk rallies for free speech it's adjacent to some hateful dog whistle?
Unrelated, LBRY seems like a hot mess[5].
[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597285572699074560 [2] https://www.npr.org/2022/11/25/1139180002/twitter-loses-50-t... [3] https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/09/28/pepe-joins-ec... [4] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#saf... [5] https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/11/07/lbry-sold-tokens-...
Or do you mean that in the past decade the Internet has come to its senses and contemporary usage of the meme means: “I am posting this as an affirmation that I _should_ be able to post it, not that I’m a racist, so don’t question my motivation. I come in peace. ;);)”[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/comments/z5f7kj/8...
Losing the support of potentially violent far-right folks for one.