It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
"Softbanned" here means that it comes dead-on-submission without any users actually flagging it, requiring vouches from multiple other users to get back to baseline.
Those submissions you saw likely either had enough vouchers lurching new with showdead or a mod blessing.
EDIT: See sibling comment. In dangs words, they are banned.
It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason
That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.
> If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine.
The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free.
So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.
I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime.
I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?"
> Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws.
If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.
– Parent is talking about making public the identities of ICE employees, doing things in public, which is by far and large true of your local sheriff;
- Individuals are reporting the presence of ICE in the area. A deliberate ambiguity is maintained about what ICE does beyond "detain people" -- whether as "collateral damage" or targeted. Intervening with the two gives us two very different circumstances.
What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously.
Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years.
A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16 year old into sex. Heavily contested).
Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.
Let's also talk about the how of the enforcement not just the what.
Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?
It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.
Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...
Last week, the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove several widely used messaging apps—WhatsApp, Threads, Signal, and Telegram—from its app store. [..] In a statement, Apple said that it was told to remove the apps because of “national security concerns,” adding that it is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” [but they don't disagree so much that they'd stop locking their devices against their users] - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_cen...
Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.
I see ethically there being a difference between what the Chinese and Russian government told them to do where leaders make and enforce the laws with their capitulation to the Trump administration in what is suppose to be a democracy where only the legislative branch and/or court system can demand anything.
I’m also not trying to escuse their heavy handedness about “being nice to China”
“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class.
> 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
There's nothing objectionable about arguing that a particular piece of bad press that a big tech company gets is false or misleading or not actually bad. Doing so doesn't even imply that you generally like that big tech company or disagree with other criticism of it.
That's one of the things I routinely find frustrating about this site. Though, on the whole, I still think responses on HN are more reasonable than many other places in the internet.
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
The fact is that neither the headline nor the article claims that the definition of "protected class" being used is the same exact legal definition used in the US.
The fact is that Apple is saying ICE is a "targeted group" and lays out every single legally protected class along with it. You can look them up if you are unaware.
The fact is that the article backs this point by citing the exact TOS.
> Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole
Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.
>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.
It’s a bit funny because even the comment is a bit of a language game
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
At any rate, I don’t usually care for precision but this case seems particularly egregious and can actually cause misunderstanding. At least, I misunderstood what the article was about from reading the headline.
Relatedly, Eyes Up has been removed from AppStore by Apple. Unfortunately 404 Media are softbanned on HN and the ones reporting here.
Apple Banned an App That Simply Archived Videos of ICE Abuses
https://www.404media.co/apple-banned-an-app-that-simply-arch...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45520110
https://eyesupapp.com/
Why is 404 media banned?
It's not, I see it on the front page all the time. Lots of times the topics they report on get flagged, though. My favorites has a lot of 404 links. My understanding is if there's an archive link it should be fine.
"Softbanned" here means that it comes dead-on-submission without any users actually flagging it, requiring vouches from multiple other users to get back to baseline.
Those submissions you saw likely either had enough vouchers lurching new with showdead or a mod blessing.
EDIT: See sibling comment. In dangs words, they are banned.
It is banned, apparently because it is paywalled and doesn’t allow people to use paywall bypass links, which isn’t true and so the reasoning doesn’t make any sense, so clearly there is a different reason
I asked ChatGPT and it linked me to a post dang responded to.
It’s related to their paywall.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42308348
That policy deserves re-evaluation. I don't pay for 404 Media. But they're breaking stories on this issue. Banning them de facto bans discussion of not only Apple's App Store monopoly, but also Cupertino's capitulation to this administration.
If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
Because they need money to continue to exist
> If their articles are so important, why don't they allow everyone to see them?
Most people read the news to be entertained. They aren’t making decisions of consequence, they aren’t civically involved and they don’t know anyone who does either. For these folks, TV and free news is fine.
The minority of decision makers, on the other hand, value information directly, but are not numerous enough to sustain investigative journalism through ads. They won’t pay, however, if they can get what they need for free.
So you wind up with an ecosystem of emotionally-triggering free slop and deeply researched, potentially at risk to the journalist, and paywalled journalism. The latter is impactful in part because it reaches people the former would not.
Their paywall is no different to any other paywall, so it is clearly not because of the paywall
There's a national security argument for the EU banning non-European app stores.
Why don't citizens have the right to track federal agencies? Don't they serve us? Apple is capitulating to autocratic rule.
I'm gonna steelman an argument I don't hold: What about CIA? Revealing the identity of a CIA operative is a crime.
I'm just responding to the part "Don't they serve us?"
> Intentionally disclosing the identity of a U.S. intelligence agent, including a CIA officer, is a federal crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which can result in up to 10 years in prison and fines. This law applies to individuals with authorized access to classified information and those without access who intentionally expose agents, knowing their actions could harm U.S. foreign intelligence operations.
I mean sure, but ICE is not an intelligence agency or holds classified information.
They're some kind of law enforcement agency that is on a mission to capture people breaking laws.
If your local sheriff is on their way to serve a warrant of some kind, and you call the person and warn them to leave or alert them to destroy evidence, is that going to go well? I don't think it should.
The analogy doesn't quite match up –
– Parent is talking about making public the identities of ICE employees, doing things in public, which is by far and large true of your local sheriff;
- Individuals are reporting the presence of ICE in the area. A deliberate ambiguity is maintained about what ICE does beyond "detain people" -- whether as "collateral damage" or targeted. Intervening with the two gives us two very different circumstances.
Please stop calling ICE law enforcement. Yes, they enforce something but it's not the law.
What is it they are enforcing then? I once showed up in Vietnam without my tourist visa approved correctly (long story). Let me tell you, they take that stuff very seriously. Canada won't even let you visit Canada if youve had a DUI in recent years. A semifamous comedian wasn't allowed entry into Canada 20 years after he got charged with some form of statutory rape at 18. (He and two friends, 18 to 20, pressured a 16 year old into sex. Heavily contested). Yet we are supposed to let people in without documentation? Without background checks? What kind of insanity is that.
Let's also talk about the how of the enforcement not just the what.
Would you be saying the same thing if you HAD a valid Vietnamese tourist visa and was snatched off the road and detained for several hours without access to a lawyer in terrible conditions by unbadged masked "agents"?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyer-us-born-citizen-detained-ic...
It's REALLY weird the Apple's app store supports generic "targeted groups". Looks like Apple literally is chasing the lowest common denominator of risk management by not upsetting groups.
For anyone remotely surprised:
Apple Told Some Apple TV+ Show Developers Not To Anger China - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/apple-ch...
Apple quietly deletes nearly a hundred VPNs that allowed Russians to get around censorship - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41712728
Apple CEO Tim Cook "secretly" signed an agreement worth more than $275 billion with Chinese officials, promising that Apple would help to develop China's economy and technological capabilities - https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...
Apple telemetry on every app opened - https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/
Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
Apple is notoriously strict with App Store rules, but gives China’s WeChat a free pass - https://reclaimthenet.org/apple-app-store-wechat-china
Apple drops Hong Kong police-tracking app used by protesters - https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49995688
Last week, the Chinese government ordered Apple to remove several widely used messaging apps—WhatsApp, Threads, Signal, and Telegram—from its app store. [..] In a statement, Apple said that it was told to remove the apps because of “national security concerns,” adding that it is “obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree.” [but they don't disagree so much that they'd stop locking their devices against their users] - https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/apple_appstore_china_cen...
Apple happily locks you out of your own devices, then cries "just complying with local governments" when those locks are used against their users. They're the person holding you down while others kick you. Every bit as guilty - especially when they see their users kicked again and again, yet continue holding them down.
At the same time they are happy to play the defender of Human Right.
Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Privacy Is A Fundamental Human Right'. - https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/10/01/44...
I see ethically there being a difference between what the Chinese and Russian government told them to do where leaders make and enforce the laws with their capitulation to the Trump administration in what is suppose to be a democracy where only the legislative branch and/or court system can demand anything.
I’m also not trying to escuse their heavy handedness about “being nice to China”
Also:
Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216
Ok so what do we do? I'm serious. I'm sick of this corruption.
Can host it on a website. Why bother with an app?
Support https://eff.org and switch to a GNU/Linux phone.
Would be safer to use GrapheneOS and distribute these apps on F-Droid, using a custom repo if the main one won't allow them.
I'm not sure it's safer if you consider their tight dependence on Google, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925
A good question. One I don't have any clean answers to.
A lot of folks will have a knee-jerk 'switch to linux' response, but that's not exactly that simple - is it?
It is, unless you rely on apps strongly tied to Apple (which you avoid anyway).
Source: https://migrantinsider.com/p/scoop-apple-quietly-made-ice-ag... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45521066)
Corporations are people and militarized police is a discriminated minority.
Welcome to the right-wing funhouse mirror version of civil rights...
This headline feels loaded.
“Protected class” has a legal definition.
“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class.
> 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
There's this crazy tendency to LARP as counsel for the defence whenever a big tech company gets bad press.
There's nothing objectionable about arguing that a particular piece of bad press that a big tech company gets is false or misleading or not actually bad. Doing so doesn't even imply that you generally like that big tech company or disagree with other criticism of it.
That's one of the things I routinely find frustrating about this site. Though, on the whole, I still think responses on HN are more reasonable than many other places in the internet.
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
The fact is that neither the headline nor the article claims that the definition of "protected class" being used is the same exact legal definition used in the US.
The fact is that Apple is saying ICE is a "targeted group" and lays out every single legally protected class along with it. You can look them up if you are unaware.
The fact is that the article backs this point by citing the exact TOS.
You don't care about facts.
> You don't care about facts.
And you evidently don’t care about having a discussion. You’d rather criticize.
> Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole
Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.
I’m sorry if that’s been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. Conversation here feels notably more fact-based than X or Facebook.
> particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group
That part seems to cover the use case for the apps.
>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.
It’s a bit funny because even the comment is a bit of a language game
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
At any rate, I don’t usually care for precision but this case seems particularly egregious and can actually cause misunderstanding. At least, I misunderstood what the article was about from reading the headline.
Maybe we should start calling it iceOS
Maybe we should stop using its 'solutions'. All of them.