

The Hypocrisy of the West - Angry Syrians rejected by Apple - FredericJ
http://fredericjacobs.com/the-hypocrisy-of-the-west

======
greedo
Conflating app curation with supporting Assad's regime is just hyperbole. This
dev has no more "right" to have his app published than I do to go into inside
a private business and yell at the owner.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Within the rules of the Apple walled garden, yes, you're right. However, we
should recognize that he has every right to publish his app in a more open
venue. Having said that, the title of his rant is a little misleading in that
there's nothing specifically hypocritical about Apple's stance. However much
anyone might dislike their business model (i.e. curator/censor), that's their
choice.

~~~
greedo
Why should we recognize that "he has every right...?" Going into business is
not a right. Getting Apple to publish your app isn't a right. He simply wanted
to make a political statement, and feels a sense of entitlement that Apple
somehow owes it to him to publish his app. Apple owes him nothing.

------
oliwarner
What on earth? Why do people assume their freedom of speech can impede on a
company's own rules and regulations. Apple very specifically states that they
only accept _some_ applications. The things they find to be in bad taste, they
won't allow. Get over it.

On top of that, trying to draw parallels between Angry Syrians and Mark
Fiore's application seems completely absurd. Political satire and stereotyping
an entire populous are fairly distinct things. One can be funny, the other
tends to just be racist.

------
prayag
Though the article is full of hyperbole and superficial sound-bites but it
does raise a serious question. What is the responsibilities of a tech company
towards free speech and it's not as straight forward as you may think. What if
the app was aimed against the American government or what if it was derogatory
towards the American people. It could have seriously harmed their business to
allow such apps. Should Apple have allowed this app in the name of free
speech?

Traditionally, the courts have ruled that private corporations have no
responsibility towards free speech. But in the world of the internet most
online forums are owned by private firms unlike the off-line world where you
are protest on any street and be reasonably sure that your rights to free
speech are protected by the constitution.

As more and more activism moves online we see a definite need for corporations
to have some tolerance towards free speech if not legally than morally.

I think what we need is a charter that tech companies sign that say that they
will support free speech to a reasonable degree and defines what the
limitations will be.

~~~
spindritf
You can start your own website today much easier than it was to publish a
pamphlet in the 18th century. Moreover, becoming completely dependent on a few
companies, and then even more dependent on the government to regulate those
companies is no way to protect our freedoms.

We should absolutely pressure and shame companies who make those questionable
decisions and unnecessarily restrict their customers but more importantly we
need to stick to open networks where news and information flow independently
through different providers. Where no single entity or even a group of
powerful entities can censor anything. We need Facebook, Google+, Twitter, we
need independent "appstores" (a definite advantage of Android platform), we
need niche sites like HN, we need independent blogs hosted by geeks in their
bedrooms, and even Tor. Homogeneity is recipe for a catastrophic failure.

~~~
prayag
Your comment is a study in contradiction. You say

> _You can start your own website today much easier than it was to publish a
> pamphlet in the 18th century._

Then you go on to say,

> _We need Facebook, Google+, Twitter, we need independent "appstores" (a
> definite advantage of Android platform), we need niche sites like HN,_

These are not logically consistent. Do we need blogs or do we need big
companies to allow big free speech? Are you saying we need both? But if we
hypothetically get big companies legally responsible for allowing free speech
why will be need independent sites? I am not sure what you mean here.

> _We should absolutely pressure and shame companies who make those
> questionable decisions and unnecessarily restrict their customers but more
> importantly we need to stick to open networks where news and information
> flow independently through different providers._

Sure thing. Pressure them, but be aware that they are not _legally_
responsible for anything. That is why I said that we need a charter for all
companies to sign so there is a framework where the law fails.

We are saying the same thing (at least from the way I understand, yours is not
a clear argument to understand).

I am proposing a concrete action items to the premises you are making. I am
not sure why you are downvoting/hating.

~~~
spindritf
> Pressure them, but be aware that they are not _legally_ responsible for
> anything.

Good. There is no contradiction and no need for them to be legally obligated
to allow anything. We need everything from large operators and their more or
less regulated facebooks to 4chans and Tor hidden services. It's not as if
Internet is too small for them.

This way everyone can find a service they feel comfortable with while also no
information can be effectively censored because of the sheer number and
diversity of channels through which it can be disseminated.

You are proposing to fight (private) regulation with more (governmental)
regulation. This is no way to protect our freedoms. It will just lead to
further centralisation of power over information.

