Apple Suspended Social Media Platform Wimkin From Its App Store (wsj.com) 77
Apple "suspended" the social media platform Wimkin from its App Store, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, "part of a widening crackdown by tech companies on potentially dangerous content during the presidential transition."
Long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace shares their report: Mr. Sheppard said the takedowns on the platform, which has 300,000 users and mimics some of the functions of Facebook, pales in comparison to content removals by much larger competitors. "I can't fault them for looking at it," Mr. Sheppard said of Apple. "I just wish they would give us a chance..." Mr. Sheppard said his team is installing additional security measures, including tools that automatically flag keywords such as "murder" and "killing." Apple's App Review Board said in a message to Mr. Sheppard Tuesday that his proposals to limit further harmful content failed to satisfy its rules...
Mr. Sheppard said Thursday night that he was in contact with Apple officials on possible ways to meet the tech company's standards and eventually return to the App Store... Representatives of the Google Play app store also sent Mr. Sheppard a warning of potential removal Thursday morning, giving him 24 hours to implement new policies, according to a copy of their correspondence reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google didn't respond to requests for comment.
The site has just five moderators in total, Sheppard tells the Journal.
"We're not out there to fact-check. We're out there to keep people safe
Long-time Slashdot reader phalse phace shares their report: Mr. Sheppard said the takedowns on the platform, which has 300,000 users and mimics some of the functions of Facebook, pales in comparison to content removals by much larger competitors. "I can't fault them for looking at it," Mr. Sheppard said of Apple. "I just wish they would give us a chance..." Mr. Sheppard said his team is installing additional security measures, including tools that automatically flag keywords such as "murder" and "killing." Apple's App Review Board said in a message to Mr. Sheppard Tuesday that his proposals to limit further harmful content failed to satisfy its rules...
Mr. Sheppard said Thursday night that he was in contact with Apple officials on possible ways to meet the tech company's standards and eventually return to the App Store... Representatives of the Google Play app store also sent Mr. Sheppard a warning of potential removal Thursday morning, giving him 24 hours to implement new policies, according to a copy of their correspondence reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google didn't respond to requests for comment.
The site has just five moderators in total, Sheppard tells the Journal.
"We're not out there to fact-check. We're out there to keep people safe
I smell a rat (Score:2, Interesting)
They have blocked the streets, grounded the subway, forbidden AirBnB and inside are 25,000 National Guard members, armed to the teeth and, let's face it, possibly all of them voted for Trump.
Perhaps the riot was just a diversion to get a reason for those 25,000 people to get in?
Re:I smell a rat (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you're provide evidence of that claim? Am I right?
Re: I smell a rat (Score:1)
By your last statement, I take it youâ(TM)re in the guard/militia then.
Re: (Score:3)
...inside are 25,000 National Guard members, armed to the teeth and, let's face it, possibly all of them voted for Trump.
No, they're just thrilled that the media is finally supporting law enforcement again.
Re:I smell a rat (Score:5, Insightful)
If you require 25,000 heavily armed military to guard you during your "swearing" in to protect you from constancy, then you might be the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Constancy? 25,000 Nat. Guard to protect Biden from being faithful? What?
Free Speech is now "dangerous content" (Score:5, Insightful)
We'll build a walled garden they said, it'll insure that the apps on our platform are safe for our users. They then banished things they didn't like, including free speech.
Sorry, I'm tired of hypocritical companies that play kiss-ass with the CCP and de-platform other apps that just let their users exercise the right of free speech. Nobody wants violence but this isn't the way you go about preventing that.
Re: Free Speech is now "dangerous content" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
0% of the Capital people arrested were Parler users
100% of them were on Facebook
Ban Facebook.
Also ban idiots who are in favor of fascism and censorship as long as it benefits "their" team, but that's another story.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At this point, what is Apple's recourse? Should they just meekly submit to having their name in the headlines with phrasing like "iPhone app used to plot violent insurrection, Apple to take n
Re: Free Speech is now "dangerous content" (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean Apple is going to ban Twitter and Facebook from the App Store?
I missed that announcement.
Re: (Score:1)
"You mean Apple is going to ban Twitter and Facebook from the App Store?"
I guess they will if they stop removing violent content in a manner that apple considers timely.
The person responsible for Wimkin agrees with apples position they just hoped they would have more time to implement additional security features:
"Mr. Sheppard said the takedowns on the platform, which has 300,000 users and mimics some of the functions of Facebook, pales in comparison to content removals by much larger competitors. "I can't
Re: (Score:2)
If they stop removing content that apple considers to be dangerous in a timely fashion you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
"If they stop removing content that apple considers to be dangerous in a timely fashion you mean?"
That too, and in this case Sheppard seems to agree with apple's characterizations.
Re: (Score:1)
I suppose the freeze peach fantasy would be that Apple takes a stand and says they think sedition is free speech and that the 1st amendment applies to them too, because they are the new town square.
I'm not sure many people would be convinced by that argument.
Re: (Score:1)
The alternative is to say businesses don't have the right to choose who they do business with, and are obligated to do business with even the most toxic parties.
They'll go for that, after all then you can't bother a gun store for selling to people who are banned from gun ownership. You can go out and buy a tank or nuclear weapon and the company can't refuse to sell to you. There goes the no fly list too. FREEDOM! ALLAH AKBAR! What you mean they would oppose selling to people who might "look Moslem" or "look like terrorists"? So SOMETIMES they can choose who to do business with? Must sell to Trump cultists but not to other types of cultists? They'd probably ag
Re: (Score:2)
Your British is showing.
Re: Free Speech is now "dangerous content" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's say, just theoretically (since this could never actually happen), that Apple discovers that a platform is being used by violent extremists to plot the bloody overthrow of of our government.
I’ve been listening to this Revolutionary War Podcast lately (I realize how little I knew absolutely it before), and it’s kind of weird because you realize that history just repeats over and over and over to varying degrees.
The keepers of the statue-quo have always been petrified of this “viole
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple removing an app does not infringe on your freedom of speech. The constitution only guarantees the government can’t prevent you from being heard.
Re:Free Speech is now "dangerous content" (Score:5, Interesting)
> Apple removing an app does not infringe on your freedom of speech. The constitution only guarantees the government canâ(TM)t prevent you from being heard.
This is the worst possible take.
Our society views freedom of speech as an essential and inherent right and therefore requires that our government respect it. The Constitution binds the government thusly.
The government does not create rights. In some cases it may be compelled to protect your rights.
But in all cases, your freedom of speech preceded the existence of that government and will exist after it's gone.
The Constitution does not bind Apple to protect freedom of speech, but our society must demand it. In addition, the government may not offer protections, e.g. S.230, to entities that violate the rights it must protect. That's why colleges that take federal money have to protect free speech on campus. The same must apply to government contractors as well as any legal fictions created by government.
You very much do have the right to free speech - because post-Enlightenment societies deem it essential and demand it. Anybody who infringes that right must be dealt with harshly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have you actually read the constitution? Here I'll post it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing of social media hurting your feelings.
Re: (Score:1)
Have you actually read the constitution? (...) It says nothing of social media hurting your feelings.
Well of course it doesn't. The Constitution was written well before social media even existed.
Re: (Score:2)
What you missed is that it's not just your rights at play here. Apple has a right to control its platform, and the two much be balanced.
On the one hand I think Apple exerts too much control over iOS e.g. by not allowing alternative app stores. On the other hand I don't think Apple should be forced to carry apps it doesn't want on its app store. That's a balance that offers both freedom to users and to Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
People are complaining all the time about how Apple and Facebook are limiting speech all of a sudden.
They're certainly not the first ones.
The New York Times has refused to print *ANY* of the long form articles I've sent them over the years. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Where is the outrage focused on them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple removing an app does not infringe on your freedom of speech.
You're correct that it's not a free speech issue, but it might be an antitrust issue. Banning apps amounts to Apple throwing their weight around, deciding who can succeed or fail inside of their locked-down ecosystem. "Just go buy an Android phone" doesn't really cut it as a solution, because if everyone did that - we'd be left with Google having a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution does include an amendment which prevents Congress from passing laws against free speech, but I don't think it goes as far as defining a definition of 'free speech'.
Amnesty International has a good definition:
'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'
Apple, Google, AWS etc can legally engage in their censorious behaviour, but let's not pretend that - in a world where most speech occurs online - that they aren't limiting spee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then tell me, oh wise mandalorian, what is the way ?
Re: (Score:1)
Goofy formatting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, is it me or does that quote end early? Looks like the last quote by Sheppard should continue on from the quoted part. Confusing.
I think it's just sloppy editing (shocking and heretofore unknown on Slashdot, right?). The ellipses make it look like there was something left out, but they aren't there in the linked WSJ article, which goes on to say,",/p>
"Content posted on Wimkin Thursday included memes challenging the election outcome and comparing liberals to Hitler." Of course, comparing your enemy to Hitler is fairly typical of the invective being tossed back and forth by both ends of the political spectrum these days. But the
Stop it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Stop using anything other than signal or the platform will just get banned
Signal is reliant on AWS. AWS bans their political enemies. We'll see.
It's Political (Score:1, Insightful)
This is how things work in China, Russia, Uganda probably. Getting tired of the shamelessness of so called Techies on here cheering for this just because it's Trump. Trump is not worth the Internet.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"This is political censorship. "
No, it is not.
It's a business that decided that their moral standard didn't allow them to sell a homo^h^h^h^hriot-cake to Trumptards.
Re: (Score:2)
Then explain this. I don't think Ron Paul is a Trump fan by any measure.
https://www.newsweek.com/ron-p... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is, as it doesn't specifically remove illegal content. It removes perfectly legal content that it doesn't like.
This is political censorship, and exactly what the Brownshirts used to do before they put you know who into power (and they were led by a hard left winger at the time).
It doesn't have to be done by a government to be damnably dangerous. Which is why a lot of the EU bloc is very worried about the developments at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is political censorship. " No, it is not.
Yes it is. It is powerful people controlling speech they do not like on behest of political party they support. Just because its against Trump and his supporters doesn't make it right.
Apple is slaughtering startups here (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're still robotically saying "it's Apple's platform," you're an idiot. What Apple is doing is using its market power to effectively destroy competition in the social media space whose policies might differ from the established giants.
IANAL, but the intent of antitrust law firmly includes blocking this sort of behavior. Apple and Google combined hold 95%+ of the global market. They have virtually the same policies. It's time to recognize that what we have is a de facto cartel that regulates who can enter markets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the moronic drivel you get from fanbois (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think a startup with only 300k users can monitor it all? Do you think Facebook and Twitter do? Of course not. Why else do you think they rely so heavily on the "report" buttons?
None of these platforms have an "anything goes" approach. This is the sort of bullshit people like you tell yourselves so you can sit there in your room, stroking your fucking iPhone like Gollum while hissing "my precious...." instead of waking the fuck up about who Apple is in 2021.
Apple: "Think differently [and we'll ban your app]"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple is doing is using its market power to effectively destroy competition in the social media space
Given that for all intents and purposes Apple has never competed in this space (Ping [wikipedia.org] was the closest they ever got, but it never went anywhere and was shut down in 2012), I’m not sure why you would suggest that Apple is competing with these companies in any way. Just like Facebook doesn’t make an OS for phones, Apple doesn’t make a social media service, let alone one that would stand to benefit from removing these apps. It’s pretty hard to engage in anticompetitive behavior in a mark
Re: (Score:1)
Given that for all intents and purposes Apple has never competed in this space
That is true, but if they are found to be colluding with either Facebook or Twitter (both of which are kind of integrated into iOS) then you could make the argument that Apple is possibly acting on behalf of a parter to kill competitors before they can get off the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
if they are found to be colluding with either Facebook or Twitter (both of which are kind of integrated into iOS) then you could make the argument that Apple is possibly acting on behalf of a parter to kill competitors before they can get off the ground.
That might be an argument you could make if they were still partners, but there hasn’t been any sort of partnership there in several years. These services used to be integrated into iOS, but I think you may have forgotten that Twitter and Facebook integration were removed with the release of iOS 11 back in 2017. While these companies obviously talk to each other, there’s no clear reason for Apple to be colluding with either of the two that you mentioned (though colluding with Google might be a d
Vote with you money (Score:1)
Do not buy Mobile devices from Apple if you don't want them to decide for you what you want
You are not my mommy (Score:2)
24 hours to implement a new policy! (Score:4, Insightful)
So I guess Google isn't interested in the policy being well thought out or well implemented then?
Can Google themselves do anything policy-like in just 24 hours?
Re: (Score:1)
Sh*tting themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think most of us would be quite happy if they cut out extremists of all stripes. I left Social Media quite some time ago, as I came to the conclusion it was a cesspool of amplified ignorance. And at times just like being a 5 year old in a playground where you want to say something, and all that comes back is name calls and bullying behaviour. None of it addressed by the platform, I suspect for many of the reasons you posit.
I have observed quite a bias in where things have been pulled, and others left
I guess its true (Score:3)
There are no Wimkin on the Internet.
Ok then... (Score:1)
Given what is said, planned, incited on Facebook, Twitter, all social media they should just blitz all of those apps out of their App Store.
The world would be a better place for it.
And so it proceeds. Consider the flip side: (Score:2)
I was thinking about Cory Doctorow's comment about this whole thing (if you missed it: "They should remove it, and tell users, "We removed Parler because we think it is a politically odious attempt to foment violence. Our judgment is subjective and may be wielded against others in future. If you don't like our judgment, you shouldn't use our app store." I'm 100% OK with that: first, because it is honest; and second, because it invites the question, "How do we switch app stores?"). Which I think is the most
Re: (Score:2)
The takedown of Parler required the collusion of six (Six!)- if not more- Big Tech firms acting together very quickly: Apple, Google, FB, Twitter, Amazon, and GoDaddy. I can't imagine they could all together agree on *anything* without a year of legal wrangling and several hundred million dollars in expenses. This happened way, way too fast; which I'll take to mean it's been planned for a while.
A much simpler explanation is that they all acted independently. Imagine that - supporting sedition and insurrection can do a number on the bottom line if your company is seen as supporting it.
In other words, they all acted out of self interest. That and their boards and C suite may actually not like sedition and insurrection either.
Anyone knows this app? (Score:1)
Never heard of it (Score:2)
They suspended Wim... what?
Apple is just the HOA of the internet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Apple is just the HOA of the internet (Score:2)
Censorship is the tool of the weak minds (Score:2)
If you feel a need to remove content, it's probably that you don't have any better response to offer than brute force.
The dangerous evildoers and dictators are not generally the ones being removed. Just saying.