Hacker News Reader

Comment by amanzi | Hacker News Reader

The precedent has already been set (e.g. Infowars) that hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app.

View on HN

> hosting an app on your platform is an endorsement of the content and the publisher of the app

What's the context behind this claim?

It seems to me that US domestic interest in excluding foreign objectionable content mean that the DMCA safeharbor provision's days are numbered.

I don't see how that follows. OCILLA is exclusively concerned with copyright, not other content issues.

There isn't any. Infowars and company were banned from various content platforms for violating platform policies.

i.e. There's flat earth content on Youtube, that doesn't mean Youtube endorses flat earth conspiracies.

The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no?

How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?

Yeah apparently treating women as property doesn't violate Google's terms. Weird.

It is reported as being used for that, yes, but that is not the same as the platform endorsing the content as the GP was claiming.

Not sure how you see a connection between flat-earthers and the Saudis' treatment of women? It's fine for people to believe the world is flat - it doesn't hurt anyone.

This is in the context of using terminology that G/A lawyers and app approval personnel use, where no humanity is considered and everything strictly objective, eg "if <rule>, then application version denied".

I'm sure Apple will take a stance now that their PR team has to deal with this, but without any eyes on an app, the app can throw moral values to the curb and will only be obligated to follow the approval guidelines.

It's a reiteration of GP's fallacious argument, not an equivocacy to the app in the article. i.e. means id est, or "in other words".

that corporates have decided to not uphold moral relativism.

Agreed. Plausible deniability is maintained but the facts are the same. We, as a society, need to move away from the silly idea that companies should be moral judicators.

If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations, why wouldn’t we expect them to be moral leaders? From my perspective it would seem they are precisely the kind of people we want pushing for basic human rights.

> If we’re going to continue to allow these companies to enjoy as much power, money, and influence as entire nations

FAANG have more money than entire nations' GDP or outstanding debt. Apple with its 250B cash reserve could buy over half of Greece's outstanding debt.

This is the context.

https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/landscape...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlqEQYpVsAATI4o.jpg

https://www.eyeofriyadh.com/news_images/132503c929611.jpg

These guys sold out the people of Saudi Arabia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com