
Apple has removed Infowars podcasts from iTunes - sahin-boydas
https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/05/apple-has-removed-infowars-podcasts-from-itunes/
======
DanielBMarkham
And Facebook has permanently banned them.

There used to be a joke on Slashdot. Whatever was happening in tech, somebody
would say "And I for one welcome our new $X overlords"

Now we have all the major internet companies deciding winners and losers.
Doesn't seem like much of a joke anymore.

All those years I watched my dear friends on the left march in the streets,
claiming that the right was going to shut them down and prevent their message
from being heard.

Fooled me, guys. I guess it's true: we become what we fear from others.

~~~
majewsky
I was going to add that that quote is a Simpsons reference, but it turns out
the Simpsons actually referenced H. G. Wells:
[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-
ins...](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-insect-
overlords)

~~~
JshWright
It's a pretty safe bet that any "Simpsons reference" it's actually a reference
to something that is at least one level deeper (I consider this one of the
great strengths of the show)

------
amoshi
I'm sure people will use the "it's their platform they can do what they want"
argument, but with Spotify and now Apple removing a certain person's content,
can we call this anything but censorship?

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Corporations get to choose who they want as customers, suppliers and partners.
The whole system would collapse if they didn't have this ability.

It's a stretch calling it censorship as these people can host their podcast
somewhere else or even host it themselves if they want to. Apple doesn't have
a monopoly on podcast hosting.

~~~
repolfx
I find this argument increasingly tiresome. There has never been a time in
history in which speech did not in some way depend on private support. Not so
long ago that private support came from the owners of printing presses. It
came from the landlords that allowed speakers on their property, and rented to
unpopular people. It came from the telephone companies that served everyone
even if they were saying "hateful" things down the phone.

What we're seeing here seems like a relatively new phenomenon, of private
companies that are taking it on themselves to systematically erase entire
schools of thought from the modern communications platforms, at least as far
as they can. And yes for any given instance you can say, well, you can host
your content elsewhere. And that works right up until Google - for example -
steals your domain name on moralistic grounds, or your last remaining ISP or
hosting provider gets attacked or comes under pressure from activists and so
on. Because the sort of people who are doing this don't simply want Alex Jones
off iTunes. They want him gone completely, from everywhere, and they will not
rest until that happens.

Unfortunately Silicon Valley has long since lost any right to claim neutrality
on political topics. That probably makes regulation inevitable. How long will
conservatives sit back and watch as tech firms systematically attempt to erase
their world view from the political conversation? How long will the wider
population tolerate Twitter shadowbanning members of the government whilst
doing nothing to an NYT journalist who (as noted above) says repeatedly she
wants to kill all men, that she hates whites etc? This sort of extreme side-
taking seems both new and very short-sighted. It cannot end well.

~~~
madeofpalk
> _What we 're seeing here seems like a relatively new phenomenon, of private
> companies that are taking it on themselves to systematically erase entire
> schools of thought from the modern communications platforms, at least as far
> as they can._

That's not happening though. Or, if it is, it's nothing new.

Newspapers have always decided to not hire someone. Newspapers are not a free
outlet for anyone to publish any content they wish. Editorial choices are made
that, in one very narrow (and incorrect) view, could be seen as eliminating
speech and "entire schools of thought".

Apple is exercising editorial control over it's platform, like they do with
most of theirs. To say that they shouldn't be allowed to do this is a very
_interesting_ claim to make, especially when you're trying to promote freedom
of speech.

~~~
repolfx
There's a key difference.

Newspapers are responsible for what they print. They can get sued if they
print things that are illegal, or even just wrong. With the editorial voice
comes responsibility for what's said.

Technology companies have historically been viewed more as common carriers. In
fact the term "common carrier" was invented to describe an earlier wave of
technology companies. They are _not_ responsible for what's said or done with
their platform because they do _not_ exercise editorial voice. The DMCA
further solidified this notion in law by making it clear that if you respond
to legal takedown requests you have a safe harbour and are not considered to
be aiding-and-abetting crime if it takes place on your platform.

Right now tech firms seem to be trying to have it both ways. They want the
scale, legal immunity and profits that come with bulk automation and claiming
to be a common carrier. But then they want to selectively eliminate legal
speech as well to make their employees feel good about themselves.

I suspect if regulation is introduced, it will work like that - editorial
control cuts both ways. If Apple, Twitter, Facebook etc are going to exercise
such control over their platform, they'll have to do it like newspapers do.
That means if someone "publishes" something that triggers liability on their
platform, it falls on them. In practice that would be impossible given their
business models.

 _Edit:_ to be clear, I'm making a general argument here rather than about
Apple specifically. Apple is a bit unusual in that it does (or at least did)
manually review most content put on its platforms. In that sense Apple might
well be able to argue it doesn't want or need common carrier status and it
would be allowed to do this and equivalent things (removing Alex Jones apps),
especially as it's not a monopoly. Also, I'm not explicitly advocating such a
legal approach, I'd want to ponder it more first, just speculating on a likely
potential future given that the legal tools and precedents already exist. Such
a change in legal perspective would affect Twitter, Facebook and Google much
more than Apple.

~~~
madeofpalk
_> In fact the term "common carrier" was invented to describe an earlier wave
of technology companies._

I mean, _common carrier_ was applied to telecommunications services that acted
as dumb pipes, carrying other people's content. Seeing as iTunes doesn't not
host podcasts themselves and acts also as a editorial platform, it seems hard
to say that Apple / iTunes is a common carrier (especially when the FCC,
incorrectly IMHO, declared that broadband ISPs are not common carriers). Of
course it gets even more complicated when these tech companies run actual news
products, like Apple News.

 _> Right now tech firms seem to be trying to have it both ways._

Honestly, this is the main problem. We don't have good ways to deal with the
roles and responsibilities of tech companies. Our old laws were made in
'simpler times' and can be awkward to apply to newer companies and the
internet in general.

Side note, I found this on the wiki: _In certain U.S. states, amusement parks
that operate roller coasters and comparable rides have been found to be common
carriers; a famous example is Disneyland._

~~~
repolfx
Yes, I think in the case of Apple specifically you're right, I added an
addendum to my post above clarifying that I'm making a more general argument
now.

If Apple had done this in isolation I don't think anyone would care. As part
of a trend that seems to be affecting most companies based in the bay area, it
is far more worthy of analysis and discussion as part of that trend.

------
mrweasel
As long as they don't prevent iTunes from importing the Infowars podcast feed,
I don't see it as a major problem.

Apple isn't required to help you promote your content if they don't want to,
but they are also not allowed to block your access to legal content,
regardless of what they may think of it.

~~~
ceejayoz
> they are also not allowed to block your access to legal content, regardless
> of what they may think of it

What law forbids this?

~~~
akuji1993
Yeah not sure, what argument this stands on, because Apple is private provider
of content on their own platform, they can do whatever the hell they want.

~~~
Wevah
I think mrweasel meant iTunes the app, not the service.

~~~
mrweasel
Exactly. It's perfectly fine to exclude content from the iTunes store. Apple
have always banned porn in the iTunes/App store, and very few have complained
about that.... Not that I would like a PornHub app for my AppleTV.

What I wouldn't like is Apple parsing the podcast feeds I enter into iTunes
and potentially block me from adding certain feeds. That should be non of
their business.

------
tgb
I'm glad to see him go, but we're at the point where large tech companies
essentially control what information we have access to and are beginning to
engage with regulating the content for real, but we do not yet have legal or
social norms about what they can or should do. I think that means we're in a
dangerous position. Right now people get removed it banned based off how much
pressure there is to remove them. We should instead have real institutions,
either in the company or broader, where the rules are made, the cases are
decided and appeals are possible. If this isn't regulated by the government,
then we need to demand our information oligopoly helps us hold them
accountable.

~~~
orev
Freedom of Speech does not require large tech companies to carry, promote, and
allow easy access to any and all speech. One’s rights extend only as far as
one has the capability to express them using their own resources. If IW wants
to setup their own app, App Store, and distribution channels, no one is
stopping them, but Apple is not required to do so for them.

------
graeme
Indirectly related. Not sure how many people here know of Father Coughlin, an
American Fascist radio priest of the 1930s. He reached millions of listeners.

Was eventually shut down by Roosevelt and his local church parish:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_of_radio_show)

------
bmarquez
Well, so much for sunlight being the best disinfectant.

You just know Alex will use the deplatforming to "prove" that the globalists
are after him, or something like that. Might have been better to ignore him
instead of Apple getting into the game of deciding what is and isn't hate
speech.

(Does NY Times hiring an openly racist editor make them subject to removal?
Who knows...but somebody will start making that argument now that the door is
open.)

~~~
neotek
Yet again everyone rushes to the defence of fascists.

If history has taught us anything it’s that giving fascists a platform is
_never, ever_ the solution, you can never reason with them, you can never
argue them out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into, and they will
_always_ use your kindness as a weapon against you.

There is no value in anyone giving people like Alex Jones a platform, all you
are doing is giving him wider access to people who will be swayed by his
idiotic ramblings.

It shouldn’t even require saying; how do you think he has such a large
following in the first place? Do you think he’s been unchallenged up to this
point? Do you think the counter arguments have had any effect on his base? Do
you think the sort of person who ends up falling for a dickhead like Jones is
even capable of understanding the arguments against his position?

Stop protecting fascists, open a history book.

~~~
repolfx
OK, let's open a history book. How is Alex Jones a fascist? Can you elaborate
on that?

Historically speaking fascists were hard left. The Fascist government of
Mussolini had the following features:

\- No democracy

\- Massive state control over private industry

\- Forced suppression of the opposition by censorship and intimidation

Has Alex Jones advocated for censorship of his opponents, massive state
control over private industry or the institution of dictatorship? If not, what
makes him fascist, exactly?

~~~
amaccuish
Massive state control over private industry != hard left. It's merely a tool
to achieve an aim. Otherwise you can start argueing that Hitler was extreme
left, which is laughable.

~~~
repolfx
How is it laughable, again? You know what Nazi stands for, don't you? And if
you accept the premise that America is probably the most culturally right wing
society today, then which was Nazi Germany closer to in its policies - America
or the USSR?

------
swebs
This is a great time to mention gpodder.net, a libre alternative to the iTunes
podcast browser. Aside from not promoting censorship, it also integrates
nicely with third party FOSS programs such as AntennaPod for Android or
Armarok.

------
gigatexal
The anti-censorship thinking in me is not happy but when it comes to Alex
Jones he’s one of the people on this planet that I wish I had omnipotence to
remove his voice. He does much more harm than good. Perhaps a solution to his
influence is educating people to think critically but alas I think for much of
his “fans” (zealots maybe?) it might be too late.

~~~
scarface74
He isn’t being “censored”. Anyone who knows the url to the podcast url can add
it. A private company can legally decide who to do business with except for
protected classes. The Supreme Court just said that someone didn’t have to
offer service to someone if it went against thier beliefs.

~~~
avar
If you're referring to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case they said no such thing,
the ruling was so narrow (and nonsensical) that it's hard to conclude that it
means much of anything, other than the court trying get out of deciding the
more general question on a technicality.

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis)

~~~
scarface74
I didn’t say it made sense. But conservatives have been fighting to allow for
profit businesses to be run based on “religious beliefs” - not only the Cake
case but also Hobby Lobby - it’s the other side of the coin.

------
i6mi6
Can anyone explain why Infowars are bad? I keep hearing they are but no
convincing arguments to support that claim.

Edit: Do people giving me thumbs down care to explain themselves?

~~~
holgerdanske
I can't speak for the American content, but the Scandinavian blog entries
range from outright lies to gross missinformation.

Would you really want that associated with your brand? I wouldn't.

~~~
i6mi6
What kind of lies do they tell?

~~~
shrikant
Read through a few of them here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars#Controversies)

~~~
i6mi6
1\. Sexual harassment “filed complaints against Jones” filing and proving are
different things. 2\. What’s wrong with conspiracy theories? Who cares unless
they are real? 3\. Can I see examples of fake news posted by Infowars? Still
haven’t seen any. 4\. Same as conspiracy theories 5\. I can think of many
examples where mainstream media promotes violence and harassment against right
wing. 6\. Chobani never proved otherwise? 7\. Not sure about copyright
infringement but alright, could be it 8\. Unexplained suspension

------
dumitrupetrov
Of course "let's silence and remove everyone that disagrees with us!", i mean
c'mon don't censor free speach, let the free market take care of itsef.

You could remove someone who is promoting child abuse, threats, racism (man oh
man, did twitter let that NYT editor board woman account stay despite her
racist comments), killing and so on, but if you disagree with someone like
alex jones, congrats! now move on! (not fan of him, but fan of free speach, i
mean i know the price of it and it's not cheap)

~~~
pavlov
What about Apple's free speech? They're the publisher. Are they supposed to
put their logo on content that they don't approve? That's not how a free
market works.

~~~
nextlevelwizard
I now expect Apple to police all content that appears on their platform. If
anything that breaks copyright appreas Apple should be held responsbile. They
can not hold on to whatever "common carrier" status they enjoy now and still
censor people they don't like.

~~~
pavlov
Maybe you don't know how the iTunes and App Stores work? Apple does "police
all content" already.

------
gigatexal
Why was this flagged? People support this guy? Or hate the takedown so much?

------
te_chris
As someone who is a big supporter and fan of public broadcasting - proper,
popular public broadcasting like the BBC, I find it super ironic that both the
American conservative and hard right, who seem to hate public broadcasting
with equal force, are being denied platforms by private, capitalist
enterprises who owe them no explanations or responsibility, and who have no
true accountability to their audience.

~~~
repolfx
What makes you think the BBC is any better?

~~~
te_chris
That's not my point. At all. My point is that a public broadcaster is
accountable to the public, so they would have offical avenues of complaint.

~~~
repolfx
Yes, and what happens to BBC employees if they ignore such complaints? How
exactly is the BBC accountable? Has the license fee ever been reduced in
response to poor behaviour or problematic journalism by BBC staffers?

~~~
amaccuish
That's not how it works. There are investigations, public apologies are made,
people are fired etc. It's quite clear from the Brexit debate that each side
believed the BBC to be biased against them, which in my mind, at least for
Brexit, meant the BBC were doing their job.

~~~
repolfx
That's accountability for individuals _possibly_ and _very rarely_. That's not
accountability for the organisation. Consider what happens if someone is fired
and someone who agrees with them on everything is immediately promoted into
their place. Nothing changes. Markets create accountability for organisations,
not just people.

The BBC love to try and escape accountability by claiming "we found examples
of people accusing of opposite biases, therefore we're neutral". However this
doesn't logically follow.

~~~
amaccuish
Markets aren't very good at accountability at all. There are numerous examples
of banks/utilities/you name it, just carrying on ignoring the public outcry.
The BBC is accountable because it's state run, and so there is a lot of
infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc.
Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn't mean people
have to watch it, or even pay the license fee. The BBC isn't a state monopoly,
it's just a state run broadcaster, I think you're confusing the two.

Prime example, license fee revenues are currently falling, because people have
been watching online and using services like Netflix, so the BBC has been
looking at ways to change their whole model to keep going.

~~~
repolfx
Markets don't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard to
enter the market at all - like in banking! But it's better than the
alternative which is usually nothing.

 _The BBC is accountable because it 's state run, and so there is a lot of
infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc_

How exactly can the state force change? The government basically leaves it
alone on the grounds of 'political neutrality' except for occasionally
adjusting the license fee (upwards). It's left to its own devices. As for
fining it or taking it to court, that applies to any company, doesn't it?
Fining the BBC is useless anyway, it's just a pass-through fine on people who
have a television.

 _Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn 't mean people
have to watch it, or even pay the license fee_

Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they
don't watch it. Yes, in very recent times for the first time ever there are
significant numbers of people who don't have a TV or radio at all. But that's
still a small minority. In effect, no matter how great or useless the BBC is,
their income remains the same.

At any rate, the original issue is more like "is the BBC more accountable to
conservatives than Apple" and the answer is clearly no. The principle that the
government leaves the BBC alone, especially in matters of news, is too well
established.

~~~
amaccuish
_Markets don 't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard
to enter the market at all_

We all know the problem with unregulated banking. And there is a market in
broadcasting in the UK, the BBC doesn't stop that.

 _How exactly can the state force change?_ Because it's backed by public
money, so there are laws surrounding its use. The BBC isn't some corporation
set up on a whim, great thought went into the system, including the charter.
See
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framewo...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framework/charter_agreement.html)

 _Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they
don 't watch it_

This more than anything suggests you don't actually know what you're talking
about. The license fee is only for watching OTA broadcasts and certain
situations with iPlayer. I don't pay for my flatscreen TV that I only use to
watch Netflix, youtube etc. And it's a !TV! license fee, not radio, you don't
need a license to listen to radio.

I recommend you read up before posting FUD.

------
thomasedwards
Free speech means you can state and opinion and the government won’t put you
in prison. That’s it, that’s all it is.

~~~
humanrebar
No, that's the first amendment. Free speech is also a broader principle that
the first amendment applies by restricting government power.

~~~
tgb
Thank you! I feel like everyone forgot their middle school civics lessons, the
amount I hear that line trotted out these days.

