Elon Musk prepared to ‘go to war’ with Apple over moderation demands

[Brihaha]

Does moderation have to go further than the law? How about if it’s legal under US law, we allow it?

We do allow it. A business has a right to decide what to publish on their platform. I am not particularly fond of the ambiguity of article 230 myself. I have been banned from a right wing website for speaking truth. Politely. I just accepted it and went on with my life.

 

[stevil]

Does moderation have to go further than the law? How about if it’s legal under US law, we allow it?

How about the owner of the platform gets to decide as long as what they are doing conforms to the law. Given there is a separation between public and private enterprise. Otherwise you may as well have a communist system where the government tells everyone how to run their business.

 

[Don't Panic]

Does moderation have to go further than the law? How about if it’s legal under US law, we allow it?

Yep, legal moderation is legal.

 

[rjs330]

DeSantis says Congress should act if Apple follows through on Elon Musk claims and bans Twitter from App Store​

Small government! Laissez Faire Capitalism!

I didn't read the article. Wasn't that interested. But if it is what it seems like then no I am not in favor of government intervention. It seems like an over reach imo.

 

[Tuur]

You seem to agree that such a thing would be an unfair abuse of power. That means it is not "good talk". It is bad enough to rile up your base with empty promises of good things; how much worse to rile them up over empty promises of wicked things.

"Good talk" in the sense that it's sounds good politically. Yes, I do think it would be an abuse of power. During the debates over whether the US should have Federally controlled national bank, the argument was that such was permitted due to the General Welfare clause of the US Constitution. But someone - I can't remember who - argued that the power (for congress) to do all that is deemed good was also the power to do all that is deemed evil. There are restrictions on government for a reason.

You can make the argument that sweetheart deals common in state legislatures to attract industry are unfair. It seems though that these are limited, with Florida's sweetheart deal for Disney on the extreme side To end a sweetheart deal is different than enacting legislation that targets as specific company. But such sweetheart deals are on the state, county/parish, city level, not federal.

Since this came up, I've been trying to remember an instance involving liquor on either the state or federal level. The gist was that one company wanted protection from another, which sold liquor not aged as long. A bill was introduced and passed defining what could be constituted a liquor of that type, and wouldn't you know it, liquor not aged as long as the competitor's could no longer be called by that type. The excuse was it was to protect quality.

 

[Tuur]

Yep, legal moderation is legal.

What, though, is legal moderation? In the US, private entities are not bound by constitutional protections of speech. I don't like bias that's shown on social media (which is why I'm not on Facebook or Twitter), but such is permitted. More troubling was efforts in 2021 to shut down a competitor. That looked like action to preserve a monopoly.

 

[rjs330]

Apple have all sorts of rules that app providers need to meet to be on their store.
And often these rules go beyond the law.

App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer

The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.

developer.apple.com

The guiding principle of the App Store is simple—we want to provide a safe experience for users to get apps and a great opportunity for all developers to be successful. We do this by offering a highly curated App Store where every app is reviewed by experts and an editorial team helps users discover new apps every day. For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too.

So here they are saying that the app store is a safe place but that things that don't meet the app store criteria are also available on the internet and you can use Apple's Safari to get access to that stuff too.

"guidelines arranged into five clear sections: Safety, Performance, Business, Design, and Legal"

• We strongly support all points of view being represented on the App Store, as long as the apps are respectful to users with differing opinions and the quality of the app experience is great. We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.

Under safety Apple has
1.1 Objectionable Content
Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.

This next one is probably most applicable to Twitter's current problems
1.2 User-Generated Content
Apps with user-generated content present particular challenges, ranging from intellectual property infringement to anonymous bullying. To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:

• A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
• A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
• The ability to block abusive users from the service
• Published contact information so users can easily reach you

Apps with user-generated content or services that end up being used primarily for pornographic content, Chatroulette-style experiences, objectification of real people (e.g. “hot-or-not” voting), making physical threats, or bullying do not belong on the App Store and may be removed without notice.

So it seems to me that they are trying to create a safe area, where people that want to be safe can go.

I do understand that there are many people on the USA political Right who have a perception that the Tech world is against them and that their political right voice is being censured.

But my view is that the political right voice doesn't have to be offensive insensitive upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. I'm sure if the the voice of the right is tailored in a way that fits with these boundaries then there will be no problems publishing them. It just seems to me that in USA, with media driven talking points, the right are intentionally trying to grab attention by saying shocking stuff. And that many on the Right just love this "trolling the left" stuff and find the typical political discussions/debates boring. And hence culture war topics rather than political policy discussions.

While I agree that people should be nice. The right aren't the only ones not being nice. I've seen thise in the left be as mean and derogatory as any on the right. Yet I didn't see Apple wanting to be a safe space for them.

And to be fair just saying something about transgender is considered hate speech and unsafe. Just asking the question what's a woman is considered hate speech and makes people feel unsafe. So pardon me if I'm not on board with the whole Apple wanting a safe space deal. What they want is a woke space where differencing views are not tolerated. Which by the way is their right as a private business I guess. But they are not a social commenting site which I think is a bit different.

And it's Tik Toks responsibility as a social media site not to shut down free speech. When you offer yourself as an engagement place as they are they have a greater responsibility. They shouldn't be doing what they've done. Musk is bringing back free speech.

And it's Apples right now to advertise with them if they don't want to. Good riddance to any woke company who does not support free speech on places like Tik Tok.

 

[stevil]

While I agree that people should be nice. The right aren't the only ones not being nice. I've seen thise in the left be as mean and derogatory as any on the right. Yet I didn't see Apple wanting to be a safe space for them.

I'd be keen to know what the "left" are saying that is mean and derogatory.
Are the left attacking minorities?
I do understand that the religious right feel that their religious freedom is underattack, but mostly to me it seems that the religious right are only being challenged on their claim of freedom to discriminate, or their freedom to force Christianity onto others.

And to be fair just saying something about transgender is considered hate speech and unsafe. Just asking the question what's a woman is considered hate speech and makes people feel unsafe.

Typically when a person asks the question "what is a woman" they are seeking to deny some people requesting to be referred to by certain pronouns. The world at large recognised that many trans people are depressed and the world at large are seeking to help those people feel more comfortable in society.

And it's Tik Toks responsibility as a social media site not to shut down free speech.

No it's not.
Only government agencies have an obligation to support free speech.

When you offer yourself as an engagement place as they are they have a greater responsibility. They shouldn't be doing what they've done. Musk is bringing back free speech.

Who knows what he is doing. At the moment it looks like Twitter is going to go under, but who knows. It's his business, he can do with it what he wants.

 

[rjs330]

I'd be keen to know what the "left" are saying that is mean and derogatory.
Are the left attacking minorities?
I do understand that the religious right feel that their religious freedom is underattack, but mostly to me it seems that the religious right are only being challenged on their claim of freedom to discriminate, or their freedom to force Christianity onto others

I forgot who I was talking to here. A staunch member of the anti-Christian lobby. Those nasty Christian people certainly don't deserve any consideration whatsoever.

 

[rjs330]

Typically when a person asks the question "what is a woman" they are seeking to deny some people requesting to be referred to by certain pronouns. The world at large recognised that many trans people are depressed and the world at large are seeking to help those people feel more comfortable in society.

Oh, I always thought they were just pointing out the absurdity of the entire idea that no one can tell us what a woman is anymore.

Yes they are depressed. That's why forever it was considered a mental illness. Depression is a mental illness
It's not the body that's the problem it's the brain.

 

[rjs330]

Who knows what he is doing. At the moment it looks like Twitter is going to go under, but who knows. It's his business, he can do with it what he wants.

In your dreams it's going under.

 

[stevil]

In your dreams it's going under.

I don't care one way or another. I've never used twitter. I'm just an observer on this one.

 

[stevil]

Oh, I always thought they were just pointing out the absurdity of the entire idea that no one can tell us what a woman is anymore.

Yes they are depressed. That's why forever it was considered a mental illness. Depression is a mental illness
It's not the body that's the problem it's the brain.

regardless, it doesn't hurt to be nice to people. Rather than challenge them, just smile and be nice. Not hard is it?

 

[stevil]

I forgot who I was talking to here. I staunch member of the anti-Christian lobby. Those people certainly don't deserve and consideration whatsoever.

Huh?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Elon Musk accused Apple of threatening to block Twitter from its app store without saying why in a series of tweets on Monday that also said the iPhone maker had stopped advertising on the social media platform.

The billionaire CEO of Twitter and Tesla said Apple was pressuring Twitter over content moderation demands.

Elon Musk prepared to ‘go to war’ with Apple over moderation demands

The billionaire CEO of Twitter and Tesla said Apple was pressuring Twitter over content moderation demands.

nypost.com

I think Apple is bluffing. Twitter has a huge user base....they don't want to lose that money. People would jump to Samsung.

You have to wonder though, why would they care at all?

Twitter is a private company. They can do as they please....can't they? Where is this pressure coming from?

 

[Ana the Ist]

regardless, it doesn't hurt to be nice to people. Rather than challenge them, just smile and be nice. Not hard is it?

What kind of people are we talking about?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Does moderation have to go further than the law? How about if it’s legal under US law, we allow it?

Agreed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Apple have all sorts of rules that app providers need to meet to be on their store.
And often these rules go beyond the law.

App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer

The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.

developer.apple.com

The guiding principle of the App Store is simple—we want to provide a safe experience for users to get apps and a great opportunity for all developers to be successful. We do this by offering a highly curated App Store where every app is reviewed by experts and an editorial team helps users discover new apps every day. For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too.

So here they are saying that the app store is a safe place but that things that don't meet the app store criteria are also available on the internet and you can use Apple's Safari to get access to that stuff too.

I assume that the safety referred to here is transactional. You don't pay money for a broken app....for example.

Or perhaps a pornographic database isn't disguised as a kid's game.

"guidelines arranged into five clear sections: Safety, Performance, Business, Design, and Legal"

• We strongly support all points of view being represented on the App Store, as long as the apps are respectful to users with differing opinions and the quality of the app experience is great. We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.

I'm curious what SCOTUS judge said that and when.

Under safety Apple has
1.1 Objectionable Content
Apps should not include content that is offensive, insensitive, upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy.

This next one is probably most applicable to Twitter's current problems
1.2 User-Generated Content
Apps with user-generated content present particular challenges, ranging from intellectual property infringement to anonymous bullying. To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:

• A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
• A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
• The ability to block abusive users from the service
• Published contact information so users can easily reach you

Apps with user-generated content or services that end up being used primarily for pornographic content, Chatroulette-style experiences, objectification of real people (e.g. “hot-or-not” voting), making physical threats, or bullying do not belong on the App Store and may be removed without notice.

So it seems to me that they are trying to create a safe area, where people that want to be safe can go.

I do understand that there are many people on the USA political Right who have a perception that the Tech world is against them and that their political right voice is being censured.

Wow....against bullying?

I remember a girl making a joke on Twitter years ago, then she got on a flight.

By the time she got off she was fired.

A viral campaign to get her fired from work had succeeded before she left the plane.

How is that not bullying?

But my view is that the political right voice doesn't have to be offensive insensitive upsetting, intended to disgust, in exceptionally poor taste, or just plain creepy. I'm sure if the the voice of the right is tailored in a way that fits with these boundaries then there will be no problems publishing them. It just seems to me that in USA, with media driven talking points, the right are intentionally trying to grab attention by saying shocking stuff.

Such as?

And that many on the Right just love this "trolling the left" stuff and find the typical political discussions/debates boring. And hence culture war topics rather than political policy discussions.

Name a political issue you believe the left wants to debate in good faith.

 

[stevil]

I assume that the safety referred to here is transactional. You don't pay money for a broken app....for example.

Bad assumption. If you read what they say, you will know better

I'm curious what SCOTUS judge said that and when.

Its beside the point. Totally irrelevant.

Such as?

Just watch Tucker Carlson, it's full of "click bait" material. Or listen to Trump speak, full of "click bait"

Name a political issue you believe the left wants to debate in good faith.

Gun control, border control, immigration policy, unions, health care, funding for infrastructure, trade, international relations, anti discrimination policies, equality, domestic terrorism, Student loans, inflation, lots of topics which can be discussed in good faith by both sides.

 

[stevil]

What kind of people are we talking about?

All people.