
Apple is removing Alex Jones and InfoWars’ podcasts from iTunes - callumlocke
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/apple-is-removing-alex-jones-and-infowars-podcasts-from
======
dagenix
As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech
means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain
exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a
private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.

~~~
jiojfdsal3
So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever
content they wish, correct?

~~~
yifanlu
No, because ISPs are natural monopolies
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly)).
The government allows them to have a regional monopoly in exchange for
investing in the infrastructure. As such, there’s no easy way for competition
to happen. (You would have to invest in a new infrastructure. Notice how you
never have two cable companies or two DSL companies unless it’s one company
selling under two names). The reason net neutrality is a big deal is because
ISPs want their cake and eat it too. They like the protections of a natural
monopoly but they don’t like the regulations that comes with it.

So ISPs dictating what content is acceptable would be like your garbage
collection company refusing to collect political flyers for an opposing party
or something. Even though it’s not technically the government, I would see it
as a government sponsored entity.

Now if you want something compariable, consider the bakery refusing to serve a
gay couple. Even though I support gay rights, I agree there with the Supreme
Court that a private entity should not be forced to endorse speech they do not
agree with. And that would be what Apple is doing here.

~~~
singularity2001
Apple and Google have a monopoly on the App store(s).

------
willio58
I think Apple is completely in the right here. They are enforcing a policy and
if people don’t like that they don’t have to find podcasts through iTunes.

Luckily podcasts are designed to be decentralized, so even if Apple gets too
trigger-happy with banning certain podcasts, that won’t affect anyone’s
ability to still subscribe to those podcasts.

~~~
singularity2001
I think Apple is completely in the wrong here. They are unnecessarily
censoring. They should not censor, they must not censor. If this crook called
Alex engaged in nonsense and hate-speech it should be the state's obligation
to sue him.

~~~
singularity2001
Wow, being pro censorship is mainstream now?

~~~
dmix
Sadly there's a very popular group of people pushing for censorship in their
partisan political battles online.

------
yuvalr1
Although I'm happy seeing this kind of content removed, I'm really afraid of a
future where private corporations have such a definitive influence of free
speech. They set their own rules, and it's dangerous.

~~~
simoalx
Alex Jones has the complete and total benefits of free speech - he can
continue saying whatever he wants without any repercussions from the
government. Apple making a decision like this isn't influencing free speech in
the slightest.

~~~
undseg
Free speech is not a concept that only exists in your constitution. It's a
mistake to bring up the First Amendment in these cases just as much as it is
to think that Free Speech only refers to the First Amendment or repercussion
from the Govt.

------
sparkling
I agree with most of the comments here. Private entities such as Apple should
be free to work with whomever they want on their platforms.

However, i feel if this was some left-leaning podcast, the same people
supporting this removal would be outraged.

~~~
flukus
Unfortunately the concept of a principled stance seems to be a casualty of the
current political polarization. It will come back to bite everyone on the
left/progressive side of politics too because companies want to avoid being
linked to any sort of controversy no matter what the position is and the
left/progressives have lost any advantage in tech saviness.

A recent (local to Australia example) was this woman fired over pro-abortion
tweets ([http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/cricket-australia-
sack...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-30/cricket-australia-sacks-
staffer-over-abortion-tweets/10051972)). The same people cheering about
someone getting fired for anti-ssm tweets were up in arms about this.

That said I also agree that apple should be able to do business (or not) with
however they like, the problem is the level of control we gave them in the
first place. Everyone publishing and subscribing to iTunes is responsible for
this. Site's like InfoWars especially should have seen this coming.

------
randomname2
Interestingly this only happened after pressure from CNN, after they
successfully got Facebook and Youtube to punish Infowars [1]

[1] [https://www.salon.com/amp/fox-news-tucker-carlson-runs-to-
al...](https://www.salon.com/amp/fox-news-tucker-carlson-runs-to-alex-jones-
defense-cnn-is-trying-to-squelch-his-point-of-view)

------
i_am_nomad
I've never listened to it, and in fact I have no idea who that guy is or what
he talks about, except that he's supposedly a conspiracy theorist. For those
of you who have, what made his show so objectionable (to Apple, anyway)?

~~~
ch4ck
He supports POTUS.

~~~
threeseed
So does Fox News and their content is available everywhere.

~~~
okket
Fox News is problematic, may be even extreme (Sean Hannity et al) but I would
not put them in the same league as InfoWars. At least not as long as Shepard
Smith gets airtime there.

See also
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjFS5f1IT0)

~~~
briandear
If we are to complain about Hannity, then we have to include Maddow. Assuming
we are trying to be intellectually consistent. She’s just as “extreme” but
from the other side.

~~~
okket
Classic false equivalence. You are right that Maddow is similar in style, but
on a fact-to-fact based comparison, Hannity is some orders of magnitude more
extreme.

------
unixhero
A slippery slope, but yeah, that rubbish had to go.

~~~
onecooldev24
The only thing rubbish here is blatant disregard for freedom of speech (Didn't
really expect anything different from the fools here). There are platforms
that are monopoly and they control free speech at this point.

~~~
matthewmacleod
“Freedom of speech” does not include the right to demand that third parties
are partners in your activities.

Infowars is and should remain free to publish content independently of these
providers, which they can easily do.

~~~
onecooldev24
We are living in a state of monopoly and EU laws agree with that. How can you
then throw away freedom of speech! Just cause the goons on this forum are
pissed, doesn't mean that guy should be banned. 48% of population voted for
trump!

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _We are living in a state of monopoly_

In what sense? Apple has a minority of the market. And podcasts are
decentralised.

> _48% of population voted for trump_

My friends who voted for Trump would find it insulting for anyone to assume
they are therefore InfoWars nutters.

------
orionblastar
Here is a thread on Reddit that explains it more:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/94xu2n/apple_is...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/94xu2n/apple_is_removing_alex_jones_and_infowars/)

He's basically lying to sell products when he lied about Sandy Hook being fake
the victim's families got doxed by his crazed fans.

He also claimed the government was putting chemicals in the water that turns
frogs gay, implying that the same chemicals turn people gay, etc.

This is really hurting people and it is getting out of control.

Apple cannot associate with this podcast for fear that they will be sued for
listing it on their podcast lists.

For people not in the USA, Alex Jones is a chicken little conspiracy theorist
claiming that the sky is falling but it is not. He claims we live on a prison
planet that Nazi alien lizards that shapeshift control. Quite a bit crazy like
him is also David Icke and others.

------
skc
Their platform, their rules.

Good on Apple I say.

~~~
mrschwabe
Exactly, now let's make open decentralized app distribution platforms that
cannot be censored like this.

~~~
threeseed
Go right ahead. And then watch as nobody uses them.

Because nobody other than a fringe minority actually wants free speech in all
its deranged, violent, racist, mysgonistic, cruel, abusive forms. The majority
of us just want a nice, safe space free from the nasty side of humanity.

~~~
Endy
So your theory is that most people want supposedly-benevolent fascism, rather
than liberty and freedom?

~~~
threeseed
That's called a false equivalence. And this is not a "theory" its facts on the
ground.

People have spoken with their actions. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Instagram,
Apple etc etc continue to grow, prosper and not be subject to any major
criticism whilst still happily removing content.

~~~
Endy
That's thanks to walled-gardens, advertising, and a lack of the average user's
ability to use adequate replacement services. Quite frankly it's not likely
for the average user to learn about DuckDuckGo, MillionShort, or Exalead.
We're starting to see some small pushback against Alphabet's YouTube, but
there aren't that many places that will ever have a viable alternative.
Dailymotion's the closest - but they're not all that close.

Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter are too tightly controlled, but the very few
alternatives are primarily grassroots efforts with small communities who are
genuinely scared of being forced to shut down by server providers with an
agenda - so they keep as much data as possible encrypted and only bring people
in by invitation. Not to mention, a social network lives or dies on the users
themselves - and frankly speaking, the average grandma isn't going have an
easy time going on Gab to look at pictures of her grandkids. Many can deal
with Instagram or Facebook.

So no, people have not spoken with their inaction. They have been led to
believe that this is all there is. They have been given an ever-shrinking Web
that is a complete disappointment compared to the openness and opportunity of
the 1990s.

------
robd003
I wish Silicon Valley believed in free speech instead of being jackbooted
thugs. Let the individual decide if they want to consume media or not. I'm
getting sick and tired of the outrage mobs trying to censor everything they
personally find objectionable.

------
karpodiem
He should just put a .torrent up of the video after the show, have his
followers upload it to YouTube, and have a form they can report the URL back
so he can embed the video.

He won't get ad revenue, but he'll still get to his message out.

~~~
freeall
I think Alex Jones is way more about the ad revenue than his message.

------
peteretep
Good for Apple. It's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather
than our elected representatives to make the right choices, though.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _It 's terrifying that we need to rely on corporations rather than our
> elected representatives to make the right choices_

I find the idea of the government restricting speech more terrifying. That's
why we have the First Amendment. I will fight for Alex Jones' right to spew
his garbage. But I'll also defend Apple's right, and in my eyes obligation, to
not actively promote him.

~~~
vixen99
Be nice to actually see what garbage is involved here so that I can determine
for myself if I agree with you. Not possible though because it appears that
Facebook did not specifically state which posts or videos violated their
policies or in what way.

------
neya
Probably be down-voted for this, but I find it funny, lots of people here
support Apple. No matter how trash the podcast author was, I'd imagine there'd
be an outrage if this were a move by Google.

I'm not a fan of either, but interesting to observe the polarized reactions
depending on the corporate in question.

~~~
tomhoward
> I'd imagine there'd be an outrage if this were a move by Google.

> but interesting to observe the polarized reactions depending on the
> corporate in question.

You're interested to see the polarized reactions _you 've imagined_ :)

Apple gets plenty of criticism on HN, just for different things to what Google
gets criticism for.

There's no reason to believe Google would be heavily criticised on HN if they
took the same action Apple is taking here.

People are sophisticated enough to consider context in their reactions to
things.

------
justsomedude43
All the people here supporting Apple's decision with an argument "it's a
private company, their rules" are the same people moaning when Apple, Google,
Facebook or others do the same thing that affects them.

~~~
imran3740
Relevant article from the socialist Current Affairs magazine:
[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-
leftist-o...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/01/everyones-a-leftist-once-
a-corporation-tramples-on-them)

~~~
wuliwong
You can definitely dislike Apple's decision to ban Alex Jones and not clamor
for regulation.

