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.
Apple never hosted the podcast. It just provided a search engine. If Google and every other search engine decides not to index the Pirate Bay, I will still know where to get my uhh -Linux distros.
It's not Apple's job to keep things convenient for content publishers. Let alone those only indexed by their search engine. If you're squelched by mere "inconvenience", then perhaps your convictions to share your message aren't strong enough and your message isn't worthy of attention after all.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Worst case is civil war but pillarisation is absolutely possible too. The division of society into groups that mostly keep out of each other’s business and think the others are going to hell or should.
> 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.
That doesn't make it any less true. Free speech doesn't depend on private support. The reach it can have does, but that's a big difference.
What is tiresome is people believing that every opinion has a right to be heard at the same volume and reach as any other, regardless of how the majority of society perceives them or even, in some cases, how despicable it can be.
> How long will conservatives sit back and watch as tech firms systematically attempt to erase their world view from the political conversation?
Let's stop pretending that this is true. Twitter is not "shadowbanning" anyone and, if anything, it's been the opposite. In a clear case of false balance they have been over-representing ideas held by a minority of the population in order to appear fair and balanced.
Now that is clear that the message doesn't resonate with many people as expected, there's a lot of frustration among conservative voices. It's time to start accepting that certain ideas are not being suppressed. They are just not that popular.
> doing nothing to an NYT journalist who (as noted above) says repeatedly she wants to kill all men, that she hates whites etc?
Context matters. And reading comprehension does to. And cherrypicking cases to prove a point is not really effective.
Twitter didn't deny it either, although apparently they "fixed" it once it was called out.
By the way, you appear to believe Twitter is a newspaper? Since when does Twitter attempt to have a "balance" on anything? Given its automated nature, it has historically just been a way for people to announce their opinions, right? Not an attempt to fairly represent all the issues.
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.