What Apple should've done is written something like Microsoft's IE9 HTML5 demos [microsoft.com] that actually work in multiple browsers, and maybe just linked to it from their developer portal.
Umm, Apple does link to all of these without the user agent filtering from their developer site. They also just posted these so Safari users could come take a look.
I suspect they've tried to be too clever and shot themselves in the foot in this little 'standards' skirmish...
Actually they tried to be open and cutting edge, but people with a chip on their shoulder insist on bashing them here, although I'm not sure why. The number of slanted summaries and absurdly negative interpretations make me wonder if it is an astroturf campaign.
Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that...
I think it's more a case of Apple has no motivation to spend the time and money doing that since it doesn't get them anything.
Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?
Because this is a demo of Safari's new HTML5 support. If you don't have Safari, you can't see what Safari's support is. This page is aimed at normal users or potential users of Safari.
Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo?
Because they didn't think of it or get around to it? Besides, interactive features are much cooler because you can actually play around with them.
What is Apple afraid of?
Why didn't you make the demos yourself post them somewhere and link to them. Are you just incompetent? What are you afraid of?
that's not the point. The point is they advertise this as standards demo, not Safari demo.
No they clearly advertise this as a demo of Safari, and it's support for HTML5. Here's the text:
HTML5 Showcase
The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
They specifically call out this as a demo of what they've implemented in Safari so far.
Ie[sic]. saying Safari is the only standards compliant browser, just like Microsoft telling IE is standards compliant.
No they actually state that "Not all browsers offer this support" which very, very strongly implies that some other browsers do offer this support. They go on to briefly mention how other modern browsers are adding support for HTML5 features so everyone will be able to use these new standards.
Works fine on Opera, but whats impressive about it? It does not have a preloader nor transitions nor custom design. Flash can do the same since flash 5?
And you've been able to do the same thing with Silverlight and numerous other plug-ins... not with native HTML. That's what is impressive. Functionality using standards and not proprietary plug-ins.
HTML5 is not the future, it's a probable future, really really think if you'd like to support HTML5 when this show[sic] us that Apple have an agenda there, You think the web will be "more free (tm)" if Apple gets to decide what is a standard?
Apple has an agenda? What agenda is that, beyond making HTML5 more functional and useful for media and Web apps? And how does Apple decide what is the standard when they're one of several major companies contributing to the creation of it? You might as well say it's Google or Mozilla deciding the standard, as that has just as much support.
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?!
How does it not comply with standards? Sure it filters users by agent string, but lots of Web sites do that. It's not non-standard at all.
What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
This is the strawman logical fallacy paired with the implicit statement fallacy. You implicitly state in your question that fanboys don't realize Apple is simply profit minded. Since no one but you made that statement, it's just a strawman.
We're talking about Apple's demo of some new portions of the spec that are in the process of becoming a standard. Sure they want to do that because it will profit them in the long run, but the organic farmer down the street only works in the field because it will profit him in the long run. Just because someone is working for a profit does not mean what they're doing is "evil" or not beneficial to me, or for that matter that I don't realize they're working for a profit.
I dunno, preserving your company's reputation and credibility ought to be big enough motivators already.
But really, they aren't. Microsoft has a terrible reputation for security and have for a long time, but until it starts affecting the bottom line, it's cheaper to pay for marketing than engineering. The same goes for Adobe. It's cheaper to hire a PR firm to talk about how Apple is hurting the industry, than it is to make a good product for the mobile market and sell it until it wins the market.
Btw, for video streaming, you can just use things like get-flash-videos and rtmpdump, and never be exposed to any of that crappy Adobe code. Whether or not the base technology has any intrinsic merit, it's obvious that even today, before HTML5 is widely deployed, it's possible to implement this stuff without any of Adobe's implementation flaws.
I don't think the discussion can be limited to just Flash used for delivering video, nor do I think reverse engineering Flash well enough to get some functionality out of it really compares favorably to an open standard specification and one can and all are encouraged to implement.
...my intuition tells me we'll be much better off. But not having a clear idea of exactly why this is...
The difference is Flash is created pretty much just by one company who has complete control. They don't really worry about competition so they have little motivation to fix security problems, or do so in a timely manner. HTML5, on the other hand, is created and implemented by a wide variety of companies and organizations all competing and interested in security and for that matter, other improvements. COMPETITION drives innovation and improvement, which is why Flash and other software where there is no competition in a niche, ewell sucks in comparison to competitive fields.
In other words, it has little to do with corporations, because the same thing would happen in the absence of corporations. At least using Europe as a yardstick.
What your missing is the way our current laws are structured favors large, industrial corporate farms over small, independent farms. If you're a corporation with political pull we'll pay you ten times as much in government subsidies for every bushel of produce, thus artificially skewing the market in favor of those large corporations. That's what this has to do with corporations and "corporate welfare".
Secondly, another reason is the number of people who live and work on farms. If you didn't subsidise, all of those people would be out of work.
I think you're missing the distinction. A lot of us are in favor of subsidizing small farmers in order to have a secure supply of food grown in our nation. The thing is, it used to be primarily small farms and a small portion of large agricultural operations. But large farming operations have driven the population you mention out of business and mostly out of work. 25% of the US lived and worked on farms in the 30's when the subsidies were first implemented. Now it's less than 2% of our population, with the majority of those subsidies going to huge corporate farms. In fact, a study a few years ago showed 73% of the subsidies are disproportionately paid to the 10% of farming production that makes up the largest, corporate farms. We not only subsidize larger farms more, but vastly more in proportion to what they make, underwriting their ability to drive out small farms and lower overall rates of employment.
But simply saying "corporate welfare" is a bit too general and doesn't help understand the underlying issues.
"Corporate Welfare" is a term used to describe bills and funding that move cash from tax dollars into the pockets of large corporations. It primarily happens because those corporations use their money to buy influence over the political system to create or modify laws in their favor. This is a pretty clear cut case of corporate welfare.
I think the difference here is that the Acid tests were published before anybody went and got 100% of them. But I'd bet that Microsoft wrote these tests back when IE9 didn't pass them, then made IE9 pass them, THEN released the tests.
Maybe, but there's no way to know that and there's no pressure on them to fix what's still broken because they haven't released a list of what's broken and what it is their goal to fix. So whether MS wrote tests they knew they'd pass or wrote tests then fixed them before publishing them, either way they're not in the same boat and not focused on technical excellence so much as marketing.
Here's a difference that everyone should note. When the later Acid tests were formulated they were written by Webkit and Gecko developers and were specifically biased against those engines. If one of the two did not fail, it didn't go in. That way it motivates them to improve. When MS writes a test suite it's biased in favor of their engine, so they can claim to be "ahead" and have no motivation to improve. It's an excellent example of who values technical excellence and who values marketing.
I don't doubt that the computer science PhDs would use linux. The "can use mac" provision is probably targeted to the graphics arts guys (who are probably using it already)
I take it you don't know many people at Google? They recruited quite a few senior engineers from a network security company I used to work for and they were all Mac users. As bonus, new employees not only get a choice of computer, but also of cubicle, including at least one is actually a children's playhouse. Google is a bunch of geeks, and contrary to your preconceptions, a lot of geeks these days are Mac users.
Well if you could prove it was horrid work conditions that lead to the suicide the settlement would probably be more than 10 years pay for the avg american wage
The average wrongful death payout in the US is estimated at $500,00 to $800,000. So we're looking at something comparable to 10 times the average yearly income in the US.
PDF is an epic fail if you're rescaling to a new "paper" size. And each reader is, of course, a different size.
I understand that most PDF reader software doesn't scale just the text or resize the pages well, but is this an inherent property of the PDF format, or simply representative of the common uses to which it is being applied?
Radicals are radicals and your assumption that most muslims want to impose their religion on others is simply that, your assumption.
Based on personal experience, speaking with intelligent Muslims who see that as the end goal.
Which is hardly a scientific way to form an opinion. From my personal discussions with christians and muslims, I see little difference. Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law. The more educated among them tend to prefer a separation of church and state that allows more personal leeway in religious interpretation without government interference.
I was surprised. It's not as though I had some preconception here...
But you are inferring a general trend from a small set of experiences with a few individuals.
There are quite a few moderate and progressive muslims.
I've seen very few, and those I've gotten into religious discussions with, again, have shown me what "moderate" means, as I said above.
Moderate means you place your own life at risk to defend the freedom of other's who don't share your religion, ala the clerics I mention. Moderate means you value individual freedom to decide. It's the same as with Christians. I could say moderate christians or moderate atheists have beliefs that are anti-freedom, but I'm not willing to make that assertion any more than I do with muslims, because I don't see it or have evidence to support it.
Define "regular" TV...
Primetime broadcast TV, you know where it is illegal via FCC sanction.
There's nothing stopping you from creating your own broadcast network...
The FCC stops me from broadcasting it over the air.
I'd also question whether it's entirely religiously based. Much of it is, but it sees to be more about the "think of the children" mantra, something which has the feel of a religion, but isn't particularly Christian.
I'd say it is absolutely based in christianity. There's no scientific evidence to support the belief that nakedness harms children. It's just an idea leftover from christian mythology.
It's not like christians have the high ground of tolerance and freedom of expression to pontificate from.
Good thing I'm not Christian, then, as if the "high ground" matters (ad-hominem, appeal to authority...)
This is neither of the logical fallacies you mention. It's contrasting the different religions as demonstrative of the lack of difference and the fallacy of singling out muslims in this or claiming that "moderate" muslims are any less moderate than "moderate" christians.
Who says that FoxConn is not just going to take the extra money as profit rather than give that money in the form of raises? The country is horribly corrupt at government and company levels.
Apple.
Apple's just paying lip service.
Apple regularly audits their suppliers, publishes those audits (even though they were dragged through the muck last time they published a yearly audit), and requires those suppliers to make changes or suffer penalties or lose Apple's business. They're one of the few companies demonstrably doing more than paying lip service.
I'm under the impression that the workers there already make relatively more than most similar jobs
Yeah, they're making decent wages for the area.
And just how far can money go to compensate you for hellish working conditions?
Agreed, it would make more sense, but then we don't have all the facts. Hopefully the auditors know what they're doing. Part of the problem was the family being given ten year's pay as compensation. Imagine that in the US. It would lead to a rash of suicides as well.
Because despite the fact that FoxConn make stuff for all sorts of people in the consumer electronics world, all the bile and invective seems to fall on Apple's shoulders.
Actually, four other major companies started inquiries as well. Apple seems more open about it (they perform regular audits and publish them openly), more willing to take action, and they get more press over these issues.
No, but you did write that they were violating the right to free speech, mangling an important concept every american should understand.
If indeed the people took their own page down, then shame on TFA for saying otherwise.
From the Guardian, "Facebook officials tell the Associated Press they played no role in the removal of the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page". Multiple sources are good.
There is a significant difference between asking me to post something myself and simply posting something up on a site that claims it is for you to say what you like simply because someone else said they don't like it.
Except it is the exact same concept. It's a third party demanding that their speech be conveyed via a specific, privately owned forum. Your freedom of speech does not extend to what other people put up using their own resources any more than my freedom of speech extends to forcing you to put up specific comments.
It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts
Correct, but taking your post down would be.
There is no conceptual or legal differentiation in free speech between preventing an act of speech in a forum and removing that speech. If the government says it is illegal to say "monkey" it's a violation of free speech, just as much as if they burn a book that has the word "monkey" printed in it.
What Facebook did was not as serious a violation as a government demanding that it be taken down, but it doesn't speak very highly of Facebook that they chose to take it down.
No, what you seem to think Facebook did may have been a dick move, but it isn't abridging anyone's free speech any more than the New York Times not running your editorial rant in their paper is. That is, of course, ignoring that it turns out Facebook didn't take it down, the people who ran the page did.
You miss the point. Facebook decides what free speech they want to put up on their Web site. You decide what free speech you want to put in your posts. I decide what to put on my website and in my posts. It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts just as it's not a violation of free speech for Facebook to not put any particular post on their Web site. It's only a violation of free speech if the government prevents you from speaking in your own speech, Website, post, etc. You have as much right to have an particular page on Facebook as I have a right to have you post particular content in your Slashdot post. You have done the exact same thing as Facebook, err, well, you would have if Facebook had actually deleted the page, which it seems they did not. Rather the creators of the page deleted it themselves.
Isn't that horse dead yet? Blocking free speech is against the way and spirit of tthe United States no matter who does it.
Alright, please respond to my post with a comment that says, "sjames is a twat". Otherwise you're blocking my freedom of speech in your posts you evil un-American censor.
Just because this censorship is not being done by the government, does not make it right.
But it does make it an issue where Facebook is exercising their protected free speech, not violating the rights of others... or would be if Facebook had deleted the page, instead of the page creators.
. Free society is free everywhere, not just on public or government property.
I demand that you go out in public and yell about how you rape kittens. Otherwise you're censoring me. My freedom of speech isn't restricted to the government not telling me what comes out of my mouth, but I'm also free to express what I want through your mouth, right?
Slashdot Mirror
What Apple should've done is written something like Microsoft's IE9 HTML5 demos [microsoft.com] that actually work in multiple browsers, and maybe just linked to it from their developer portal.
Umm, Apple does link to all of these without the user agent filtering from their developer site. They also just posted these so Safari users could come take a look.
I suspect they've tried to be too clever and shot themselves in the foot in this little 'standards' skirmish...
Actually they tried to be open and cutting edge, but people with a chip on their shoulder insist on bashing them here, although I'm not sure why. The number of slanted summaries and absurdly negative interpretations make me wonder if it is an astroturf campaign.
Safari for Linux? Not likely. Apple's afraid to do that...
I think it's more a case of Apple has no motivation to spend the time and money doing that since it doesn't get them anything.
Why does Apple want to make you download and install Safari?
Because this is a demo of Safari's new HTML5 support. If you don't have Safari, you can't see what Safari's support is. This page is aimed at normal users or potential users of Safari.
Since they are already checking your browser to see the demo, why not have an alternative video file for each demo if your current browser doesn't support the individual demo?
Because they didn't think of it or get around to it? Besides, interactive features are much cooler because you can actually play around with them.
What is Apple afraid of?
Why didn't you make the demos yourself post them somewhere and link to them. Are you just incompetent? What are you afraid of?
that's not the point. The point is they advertise this as standards demo, not Safari demo.
No they clearly advertise this as a demo of Safari, and it's support for HTML5. Here's the text:
HTML5 Showcase The demos below show how the latest version of Apple’s Safari web browser, new Macs, and new Apple mobile devices all support the capabilities of HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. Not all browsers offer this support. But soon other modern browsers will take advantage of these same web standards — and the amazing things they enable web designers to do.
They specifically call out this as a demo of what they've implemented in Safari so far.
Ie[sic]. saying Safari is the only standards compliant browser, just like Microsoft telling IE is standards compliant.
No they actually state that "Not all browsers offer this support" which very, very strongly implies that some other browsers do offer this support. They go on to briefly mention how other modern browsers are adding support for HTML5 features so everyone will be able to use these new standards.
Works fine on Opera, but whats impressive about it? It does not have a preloader nor transitions nor custom design. Flash can do the same since flash 5?
And you've been able to do the same thing with Silverlight and numerous other plug-ins... not with native HTML. That's what is impressive. Functionality using standards and not proprietary plug-ins.
HTML5 is not the future, it's a probable future, really really think if you'd like to support HTML5 when this show[sic] us that Apple have an agenda there, You think the web will be "more free (tm)" if Apple gets to decide what is a standard?
Apple has an agenda? What agenda is that, beyond making HTML5 more functional and useful for media and Web apps? And how does Apple decide what is the standard when they're one of several major companies contributing to the creation of it? You might as well say it's Google or Mozilla deciding the standard, as that has just as much support.
Criticizing Apple for making a showcase of what they can do with standards not comply with standard browsers is trolling?!
How does it not comply with standards? Sure it filters users by agent string, but lots of Web sites do that. It's not non-standard at all.
What does Apple have to do for fanboys to realize that they are just another GenericBigCompany(tm) who will rape you to death if they thought it'd add 1% to their quarterly bottom line?
This is the strawman logical fallacy paired with the implicit statement fallacy. You implicitly state in your question that fanboys don't realize Apple is simply profit minded. Since no one but you made that statement, it's just a strawman.
We're talking about Apple's demo of some new portions of the spec that are in the process of becoming a standard. Sure they want to do that because it will profit them in the long run, but the organic farmer down the street only works in the field because it will profit him in the long run. Just because someone is working for a profit does not mean what they're doing is "evil" or not beneficial to me, or for that matter that I don't realize they're working for a profit.
I dunno, preserving your company's reputation and credibility ought to be big enough motivators already.
But really, they aren't. Microsoft has a terrible reputation for security and have for a long time, but until it starts affecting the bottom line, it's cheaper to pay for marketing than engineering. The same goes for Adobe. It's cheaper to hire a PR firm to talk about how Apple is hurting the industry, than it is to make a good product for the mobile market and sell it until it wins the market.
Btw, for video streaming, you can just use things like get-flash-videos and rtmpdump, and never be exposed to any of that crappy Adobe code. Whether or not the base technology has any intrinsic merit, it's obvious that even today, before HTML5 is widely deployed, it's possible to implement this stuff without any of Adobe's implementation flaws.
I don't think the discussion can be limited to just Flash used for delivering video, nor do I think reverse engineering Flash well enough to get some functionality out of it really compares favorably to an open standard specification and one can and all are encouraged to implement.
...my intuition tells me we'll be much better off. But not having a clear idea of exactly why this is...
The difference is Flash is created pretty much just by one company who has complete control. They don't really worry about competition so they have little motivation to fix security problems, or do so in a timely manner. HTML5, on the other hand, is created and implemented by a wide variety of companies and organizations all competing and interested in security and for that matter, other improvements. COMPETITION drives innovation and improvement, which is why Flash and other software where there is no competition in a niche, ewell sucks in comparison to competitive fields.
Wow did I really use "your" instead of (the correct) "you're"? I suck.
In other words, it has little to do with corporations, because the same thing would happen in the absence of corporations. At least using Europe as a yardstick.
What your missing is the way our current laws are structured favors large, industrial corporate farms over small, independent farms. If you're a corporation with political pull we'll pay you ten times as much in government subsidies for every bushel of produce, thus artificially skewing the market in favor of those large corporations. That's what this has to do with corporations and "corporate welfare".
Secondly, another reason is the number of people who live and work on farms. If you didn't subsidise, all of those people would be out of work.
I think you're missing the distinction. A lot of us are in favor of subsidizing small farmers in order to have a secure supply of food grown in our nation. The thing is, it used to be primarily small farms and a small portion of large agricultural operations. But large farming operations have driven the population you mention out of business and mostly out of work. 25% of the US lived and worked on farms in the 30's when the subsidies were first implemented. Now it's less than 2% of our population, with the majority of those subsidies going to huge corporate farms. In fact, a study a few years ago showed 73% of the subsidies are disproportionately paid to the 10% of farming production that makes up the largest, corporate farms. We not only subsidize larger farms more, but vastly more in proportion to what they make, underwriting their ability to drive out small farms and lower overall rates of employment.
But simply saying "corporate welfare" is a bit too general and doesn't help understand the underlying issues.
"Corporate Welfare" is a term used to describe bills and funding that move cash from tax dollars into the pockets of large corporations. It primarily happens because those corporations use their money to buy influence over the political system to create or modify laws in their favor. This is a pretty clear cut case of corporate welfare.
I think the difference here is that the Acid tests were published before anybody went and got 100% of them. But I'd bet that Microsoft wrote these tests back when IE9 didn't pass them, then made IE9 pass them, THEN released the tests.
Maybe, but there's no way to know that and there's no pressure on them to fix what's still broken because they haven't released a list of what's broken and what it is their goal to fix. So whether MS wrote tests they knew they'd pass or wrote tests then fixed them before publishing them, either way they're not in the same boat and not focused on technical excellence so much as marketing.
Here's a difference that everyone should note. When the later Acid tests were formulated they were written by Webkit and Gecko developers and were specifically biased against those engines. If one of the two did not fail, it didn't go in. That way it motivates them to improve. When MS writes a test suite it's biased in favor of their engine, so they can claim to be "ahead" and have no motivation to improve. It's an excellent example of who values technical excellence and who values marketing.
Folks, when a major newspaper like the FT, WSJ, or New York Times reports something, it's probably true.
You should know the WSJ is owned by Fox now and the quality and truthfulness of the reporting has changed to match.
I don't doubt that the computer science PhDs would use linux. The "can use mac" provision is probably targeted to the graphics arts guys (who are probably using it already)
I take it you don't know many people at Google? They recruited quite a few senior engineers from a network security company I used to work for and they were all Mac users. As bonus, new employees not only get a choice of computer, but also of cubicle, including at least one is actually a children's playhouse. Google is a bunch of geeks, and contrary to your preconceptions, a lot of geeks these days are Mac users.
Well if you could prove it was horrid work conditions that lead to the suicide the settlement would probably be more than 10 years pay for the avg american wage
The average wrongful death payout in the US is estimated at $500,00 to $800,000. So we're looking at something comparable to 10 times the average yearly income in the US.
PDF is an epic fail if you're rescaling to a new "paper" size. And each reader is, of course, a different size.
I understand that most PDF reader software doesn't scale just the text or resize the pages well, but is this an inherent property of the PDF format, or simply representative of the common uses to which it is being applied?
Radicals are radicals and your assumption that most muslims want to impose their religion on others is simply that, your assumption.
Based on personal experience, speaking with intelligent Muslims who see that as the end goal.
Which is hardly a scientific way to form an opinion. From my personal discussions with christians and muslims, I see little difference. Many of both would like their religious beliefs to be enacted as law. The more educated among them tend to prefer a separation of church and state that allows more personal leeway in religious interpretation without government interference.
I was surprised. It's not as though I had some preconception here...
But you are inferring a general trend from a small set of experiences with a few individuals.
There are quite a few moderate and progressive muslims.
I've seen very few, and those I've gotten into religious discussions with, again, have shown me what "moderate" means, as I said above.
Moderate means you place your own life at risk to defend the freedom of other's who don't share your religion, ala the clerics I mention. Moderate means you value individual freedom to decide. It's the same as with Christians. I could say moderate christians or moderate atheists have beliefs that are anti-freedom, but I'm not willing to make that assertion any more than I do with muslims, because I don't see it or have evidence to support it.
Define "regular" TV...
Primetime broadcast TV, you know where it is illegal via FCC sanction.
There's nothing stopping you from creating your own broadcast network...
The FCC stops me from broadcasting it over the air.
I'd also question whether it's entirely religiously based. Much of it is, but it sees to be more about the "think of the children" mantra, something which has the feel of a religion, but isn't particularly Christian.
I'd say it is absolutely based in christianity. There's no scientific evidence to support the belief that nakedness harms children. It's just an idea leftover from christian mythology.
It's not like christians have the high ground of tolerance and freedom of expression to pontificate from.
Good thing I'm not Christian, then, as if the "high ground" matters (ad-hominem, appeal to authority...)
This is neither of the logical fallacies you mention. It's contrasting the different religions as demonstrative of the lack of difference and the fallacy of singling out muslims in this or claiming that "moderate" muslims are any less moderate than "moderate" christians.
Who says that FoxConn is not just going to take the extra money as profit rather than give that money in the form of raises? The country is horribly corrupt at government and company levels.
Apple.
Apple's just paying lip service.
Apple regularly audits their suppliers, publishes those audits (even though they were dragged through the muck last time they published a yearly audit), and requires those suppliers to make changes or suffer penalties or lose Apple's business. They're one of the few companies demonstrably doing more than paying lip service.
I'm under the impression that the workers there already make relatively more than most similar jobs
Yeah, they're making decent wages for the area.
And just how far can money go to compensate you for hellish working conditions?
Agreed, it would make more sense, but then we don't have all the facts. Hopefully the auditors know what they're doing. Part of the problem was the family being given ten year's pay as compensation. Imagine that in the US. It would lead to a rash of suicides as well.
Because despite the fact that FoxConn make stuff for all sorts of people in the consumer electronics world, all the bile and invective seems to fall on Apple's shoulders.
Actually, four other major companies started inquiries as well. Apple seems more open about it (they perform regular audits and publish them openly), more willing to take action, and they get more press over these issues.
I never said they violated the law or even close.
No, but you did write that they were violating the right to free speech, mangling an important concept every american should understand.
If indeed the people took their own page down, then shame on TFA for saying otherwise.
From the Guardian, "Facebook officials tell the Associated Press they played no role in the removal of the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" page". Multiple sources are good.
There is a significant difference between asking me to post something myself and simply posting something up on a site that claims it is for you to say what you like simply because someone else said they don't like it.
Except it is the exact same concept. It's a third party demanding that their speech be conveyed via a specific, privately owned forum. Your freedom of speech does not extend to what other people put up using their own resources any more than my freedom of speech extends to forcing you to put up specific comments.
It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts
Correct, but taking your post down would be.
There is no conceptual or legal differentiation in free speech between preventing an act of speech in a forum and removing that speech. If the government says it is illegal to say "monkey" it's a violation of free speech, just as much as if they burn a book that has the word "monkey" printed in it.
What Facebook did was not as serious a violation as a government demanding that it be taken down, but it doesn't speak very highly of Facebook that they chose to take it down.
No, what you seem to think Facebook did may have been a dick move, but it isn't abridging anyone's free speech any more than the New York Times not running your editorial rant in their paper is. That is, of course, ignoring that it turns out Facebook didn't take it down, the people who ran the page did.
You miss the point. Facebook decides what free speech they want to put up on their Web site. You decide what free speech you want to put in your posts. I decide what to put on my website and in my posts. It's not a violation of freedom of speech for you to refuse to put what I want in your posts just as it's not a violation of free speech for Facebook to not put any particular post on their Web site. It's only a violation of free speech if the government prevents you from speaking in your own speech, Website, post, etc. You have as much right to have an particular page on Facebook as I have a right to have you post particular content in your Slashdot post. You have done the exact same thing as Facebook, err, well, you would have if Facebook had actually deleted the page, which it seems they did not. Rather the creators of the page deleted it themselves.
Isn't that horse dead yet? Blocking free speech is against the way and spirit of tthe United States no matter who does it.
Alright, please respond to my post with a comment that says, "sjames is a twat". Otherwise you're blocking my freedom of speech in your posts you evil un-American censor.
Just because this censorship is not being done by the government, does not make it right.
But it does make it an issue where Facebook is exercising their protected free speech, not violating the rights of others... or would be if Facebook had deleted the page, instead of the page creators.
. Free society is free everywhere, not just on public or government property.
I demand that you go out in public and yell about how you rape kittens. Otherwise you're censoring me. My freedom of speech isn't restricted to the government not telling me what comes out of my mouth, but I'm also free to express what I want through your mouth, right?