Nobody "becomes homosexual" or "becomes heterosexual", they only can choose whether to come out of the closet and stop hating themselves.
I realize to you this is a fun abstract argument, but for many people this is literally a life or death issue. Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide because they are wrestling with the puritanical shame vortex created by the people trying to 'cure them'?
You are in the phase of your life where you are trying to fit some simple rules to how the world works and how it should work--as your brain develops you will develop the capability to cope with additional complexity. One of the things you will learn to distinguish is the difference between the morality of an opinion which serves only to isolate and persecute class of people vs. an opinion which is intended to uplift a class of people without denigrating another.
It's naked tribalism, old as sin--but unfortunately a concept that many people can't get their heads wrapped around until they get a little older.
So initially this was about the "discourse commons", meaning that Apple's tight control was somehow a threat to democracy.
You've now retreated into fairly raw foot stomping that while it should be allowed for a company to be successful or to offer a "curated experience"; they shouldn't be allowed to be both successful AND to offer a "curated experience". We are all left to speculate on the basis for why you think this is some sort of obvious moral imperative.
The only generally-accepted social/economic/legal concept that even marginally lines up with that way of thinking has to do with capitalist monopoly abuse. But you won't go there because you can't even come close to claiming that Apple has a monopoly (just look at Android) or that they are abusing their market position to restrict competition from a competing ecosystem.
So I am left completely befuddled about this world view in which you accept the existence of curated outlets all around you, including ones with honest-to-god real walls (e.g. Disneyworld), but somehow you become indignant when faced with Apple doing a fairly tame [and arguably less restrictive] version of the exact same thing.
I'm calling bullshit. I don't think you understand anything about political science or economics, and probably not about technology either. You are a whiny brat who wants a $100 billion corporation to make exactly the product you want eventhough they can make more money by making the product that millions of other people want. I think you are cloaking your disgust in a completely fabricated veil of intellectualism with a mixed in Chicken Little impression about how the future freedom of the internet is at stake.
You have been thoroughly destroyed, and it was the easiest thing I did today.
One could invent all sorts of imaginary things to worry about, most of which would be no-more farfetched than your ridiculous implication that Apple is somehow planning to limit access to the internet.
I noticed that you aren't denying the pedofile claim. Doesn't matter, denying it would just make you look more guilty.
with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it--so how you can argue that this has anything to do with censoring access to information is beyond me.
We aren't talking about a censored world, we're talking about a curated store for buying little applications to run on a phone. You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
There are a small number of companies which control the overwhelming majority of theme parks--and none of them provide an 'uncurated' experience, yet somehow democracy has not crumbled.
I don't see how political speech is a major function of the App Store, either--it certainly isn't positioned that way by Apple. There are completely functional and far more popular avenues for political speech which reach everyone the App Store reaches (and far more)--Apple is doing nothing to block those.
Dude, you've lost this argument, this isn't a free speech issue and it has nothing to do with the discourse commons. This is a private company making a very successful product. Maybe you want this product, but you don't like some small parts of it (like the inability to run arbitrary code for your personal needs), you don't like the politics of it (like Apple's curation philosophy), or maybe you don't like the people that buy them (maybe you feel they are too technically unsophisticated to be worthy of a powerful smartphone); whatever the reason you've concocted some silly rationalization about the fracturing of 'discourse commons'. Guess what? you're not Gandhi.
Apple's iPhone/iPad/App_Store ecosystem == Disneyworld, tolerate both or hate both.
1. The Internet is wide-open, they provide an extremely standards-compliant browser into the unfiltered internet subject only to your choice to apply parental safety settings. They exercise no editorial control over the Internet or any standards-based web apps.
2. The App Store is literally "Apple's Store" just as if you were shopping in one of their retail stores. They exercise editorial control over things offered in that store consistent with their corporate policies and image.
This is a corporate-curated user experience, people know that going in--just like Disneyworld. So where is all your righteous indignation over Disneyworld?
Most people purchase an iPhone/iPad specifically (at least in part) because they want a safe curated experience in that one little part of their lives--pretty much for the same reason people go to Disneyworld. I certainly don't want to worry about my kid stumbling across some app on his iPad that teaches people that homosexuality is wrong and needs to be cured. Sure, there are some subjective judgments involved in what gets in and what gets out--that's going to happen whenever you have a curator. I still prefer the curated experience to the non-curated one.
If you don't, then don't buy an iPhone--but don't pretend that you are some kind of holy freedom fighter unless you also are going to criticize every other company-sponsored curated experience the same way.
the customer into the Disney experience while they are there. So must we require Disney to allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest in front of Space Mountain? What's the difference?
My point is that your smug outrage at Apple's draconian control of the App Store is hypocritical unless you are similarly outraged at why Disneyworld doesn't allow unsavory third parties from setting up shop inside their own little walled garden.
People who bought iPhone specifically bought a ticket into Apple's walled garden--they knew what they were getting themselves into and they did it for legitimate reasons just like people who buy tickets to Disneyworld are happy with the limitations; so why are you outraged about the existence of Apple's walled garden and not Disneyworld's?
There are tons of point-of-sale applications, inventory control, logistics applications which crave a connected tablet device and that people use for real work everyday--the iPad is a boon to this industry.
The medical industry is being revolutionized by devices like this. Doctors can carry an iPad and easily lookup X-rays and lab results and chart info from anywhere in the hospital.
There is a huge rush to outfit kids with Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy with devices like this because it works better than any of the specialized augmentative communication devices that existed before and it costs 1/10th as much.
And yes, Grandma can use it to see pictures of her grandkids and Facetime with them.
But in your world, it is a toy for goofing off with, not something real that adds value to the planet.
they've had a locked down software model for years. Hell, what about Maytag and Frigidaire? you've had devices in your home with microprocessors capable of running software for years but it's not a problem until Apple does the same thing, right? Do you have any idea how many processors are in your car?
You aren't Gandhi, nobody cares about your self-launched freedom struggle. You are a whiny little brat. Get a hobby, discover girls, move on with your life.
You think that the following two statements are morally equivalent:
"I'm gay and that's okay" "You are gay and need to be either cured or persecuted"
They aren't.
Apple didn't ban because somebody somewhere was offended, they banned the app because a large group of people was *legitimately* offended. Point out a serious app with the theme "You are straight and need to be either cured or persecuted" if you want to prove me wrong.
That is what you fundamentally don't understand. Apple doesn't want your money--they want a million times more money by focusing on the "lot of people" who you smugly define as not doing "real work" with their desktops/laptops because your definition of real work is hacking at whatever Java/XML database somebody pays you $20 / hour to do.
Slashdot Mirror
no "straight cure" app, then you will have yet another example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.
Not all beliefs are equal--some are just downright meanspirited and need to be smacked down.
Nobody "becomes homosexual" or "becomes heterosexual", they only can choose whether to come out of the closet and stop hating themselves.
I realize to you this is a fun abstract argument, but for many people this is literally a life or death issue. Do you have any idea how many people commit suicide because they are wrestling with the puritanical shame vortex created by the people trying to 'cure them'?
You are in the phase of your life where you are trying to fit some simple rules to how the world works and how it should work--as your brain develops you will develop the capability to cope with additional complexity. One of the things you will learn to distinguish is the difference between the morality of an opinion which serves only to isolate and persecute class of people vs. an opinion which is intended to uplift a class of people without denigrating another.
It's naked tribalism, old as sin--but unfortunately a concept that many people can't get their heads wrapped around until they get a little older.
So initially this was about the "discourse commons", meaning that Apple's tight control was somehow a threat to democracy.
You've now retreated into fairly raw foot stomping that while it should be allowed for a company to be successful or to offer a "curated experience"; they shouldn't be allowed to be both successful AND to offer a "curated experience". We are all left to speculate on the basis for why you think this is some sort of obvious moral imperative.
The only generally-accepted social/economic/legal concept that even marginally lines up with that way of thinking has to do with capitalist monopoly abuse. But you won't go there because you can't even come close to claiming that Apple has a monopoly (just look at Android) or that they are abusing their market position to restrict competition from a competing ecosystem.
So I am left completely befuddled about this world view in which you accept the existence of curated outlets all around you, including ones with honest-to-god real walls (e.g. Disneyworld), but somehow you become indignant when faced with Apple doing a fairly tame [and arguably less restrictive] version of the exact same thing.
I'm calling bullshit. I don't think you understand anything about political science or economics, and probably not about technology either. You are a whiny brat who wants a $100 billion corporation to make exactly the product you want eventhough they can make more money by making the product that millions of other people want. I think you are cloaking your disgust in a completely fabricated veil of intellectualism with a mixed in Chicken Little impression about how the future freedom of the internet is at stake.
You have been thoroughly destroyed, and it was the easiest thing I did today.
One could invent all sorts of imaginary things to worry about, most of which would be no-more farfetched than your ridiculous implication that Apple is somehow planning to limit access to the internet.
I noticed that you aren't denying the pedofile claim. Doesn't matter, denying it would just make you look more guilty.
iOS/Android users can access the same raw/unfiltered/standards-compliant internet that any other user can access.
physical walls?
What about the Disney channel on TV? do they have to run Westboro Church's commercials during Handy Manny episodes?
---
This is like shooting fish in a barrel, by the way.
Because that yard doesn't contain every other political sign? What about an American flag?
Are you saying that millions of people who display these items in their front yards are engaged in "bad and evil" behavior?
with them--I think that speaks volumes about what "most" people who purchase those products want.
Apple does absolutely nothing to limit access to the raw, unfiltered, standards-compliant internet for all who want it--so how you can argue that this has anything to do with censoring access to information is beyond me.
We aren't talking about a censored world, we're talking about a curated store for buying little applications to run on a phone. You aren't a freedom fighter, you are just an ass-hat who wishes that some $100 billion dollar corporation would make exactly the phone you want rather than the one that makes them the most money.
There are a small number of companies which control the overwhelming majority of theme parks--and none of them provide an 'uncurated' experience, yet somehow democracy has not crumbled.
I don't see how political speech is a major function of the App Store, either--it certainly isn't positioned that way by Apple. There are completely functional and far more popular avenues for political speech which reach everyone the App Store reaches (and far more)--Apple is doing nothing to block those.
Dude, you've lost this argument, this isn't a free speech issue and it has nothing to do with the discourse commons. This is a private company making a very successful product. Maybe you want this product, but you don't like some small parts of it (like the inability to run arbitrary code for your personal needs), you don't like the politics of it (like Apple's curation philosophy), or maybe you don't like the people that buy them (maybe you feel they are too technically unsophisticated to be worthy of a powerful smartphone); whatever the reason you've concocted some silly rationalization about the fracturing of 'discourse commons'. Guess what? you're not Gandhi.
Apple's iPhone/iPad/App_Store ecosystem == Disneyworld, tolerate both or hate both.
Since when.?
Apple has been quite consistent:
1. The Internet is wide-open, they provide an extremely standards-compliant browser into the unfiltered internet subject only to your choice to apply parental safety settings. They exercise no editorial control over the Internet or any standards-based web apps.
2. The App Store is literally "Apple's Store" just as if you were shopping in one of their retail stores. They exercise editorial control over things offered in that store consistent with their corporate policies and image.
This is a corporate-curated user experience, people know that going in--just like Disneyworld. So where is all your righteous indignation over Disneyworld?
Most people purchase an iPhone/iPad specifically (at least in part) because they want a safe curated experience in that one little part of their lives--pretty much for the same reason people go to Disneyworld. I certainly don't want to worry about my kid stumbling across some app on his iPad that teaches people that homosexuality is wrong and needs to be cured. Sure, there are some subjective judgments involved in what gets in and what gets out--that's going to happen whenever you have a curator. I still prefer the curated experience to the non-curated one.
If you don't, then don't buy an iPhone--but don't pretend that you are some kind of holy freedom fighter unless you also are going to criticize every other company-sponsored curated experience the same way.
the customer into the Disney experience while they are there. So must we require Disney to allow Westboro Baptist Church to protest in front of Space Mountain? What's the difference?
something.
So the "App Store" is the discourse commons now? Not the internet? Seriously?
My point is that your smug outrage at Apple's draconian control of the App Store is hypocritical unless you are similarly outraged at why Disneyworld doesn't allow unsavory third parties from setting up shop inside their own little walled garden.
People who bought iPhone specifically bought a ticket into Apple's walled garden--they knew what they were getting themselves into and they did it for legitimate reasons just like people who buy tickets to Disneyworld are happy with the limitations; so why are you outraged about the existence of Apple's walled garden and not Disneyworld's?
try looking that up.
There are tons of point-of-sale applications, inventory control, logistics applications which crave a connected tablet device and that people use for real work everyday--the iPad is a boon to this industry.
The medical industry is being revolutionized by devices like this. Doctors can carry an iPad and easily lookup X-rays and lab results and chart info from anywhere in the hospital.
There is a huge rush to outfit kids with Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy with devices like this because it works better than any of the specialized augmentative communication devices that existed before and it costs 1/10th as much.
And yes, Grandma can use it to see pictures of her grandkids and Facetime with them.
But in your world, it is a toy for goofing off with, not something real that adds value to the planet.
The real world is bigger than your world, dick.
No strip clubs, either. And the Westboro Baptist church isn't allowed to protest in front of Space Mountain.
I assume you are just as pissed about that.
Idiot.
they've had a locked down software model for years. Hell, what about Maytag and Frigidaire? you've had devices in your home with microprocessors capable of running software for years but it's not a problem until Apple does the same thing, right? Do you have any idea how many processors are in your car?
You aren't Gandhi, nobody cares about your self-launched freedom struggle. You are a whiny little brat. Get a hobby, discover girls, move on with your life.
You think that the following two statements are morally equivalent:
"I'm gay and that's okay"
"You are gay and need to be either cured or persecuted"
They aren't.
Apple didn't ban because somebody somewhere was offended, they banned the app because a large group of people was *legitimately* offended. Point out a serious app with the theme "You are straight and need to be either cured or persecuted" if you want to prove me wrong.
Proof right here.
by not displaying my political banners on the front of your house. Censorship is bad and evil you jackbooted thug!!!
That is what you fundamentally don't understand. Apple doesn't want your money--they want a million times more money by focusing on the "lot of people" who you smugly define as not doing "real work" with their desktops/laptops because your definition of real work is hacking at whatever Java/XML database somebody pays you $20 / hour to do.
The real world is much larger than your world.
I guess that makes those companies evil.
They have the only smartphones in the world and the only App store in the world? And they control every web site on the planet?
Really?