How about we consider any website accessible through Safari? Is Apple going to start blocking users from viewing those?

I'll not be surprised. Apple always wants total control on their platforms. Obviously sometimes its plays against them.

> Obviously sometimes its plays against them.

Also known as accountability for their own actions.

The opening steps of that are already in place. Apple is already blocking content in safari by default. It’s currently doing so in the name of privacy, and chances are that what it’s currently doing is ultimately user positive.

The mechanism is already in place and ready to be expanded to include anything more as necessary.

No, Facebook is not aggressive in moderating anything except their PR. It's full of bots, full of disinformation, and full of hate-filled groups. You have to be smart enough not to use it to be naive enough to believe they police any aspect of it adequately.

I doubt it. Maybe they crack down on an app or two when they feel like it but Apple aren't moving the needle on incitement.

Plus they make and sell communication apps subject to carrying the exact same sentiments. Content policing a chat app is asinine.

It's not. They don't allow NSFW apps on iOS even if it's user generated. They have to make it explicitly opt in with significant restrictions.

Apple can do whatever they want on their platform. I wouldn't want to be involved in something illegal such as above when using an app on iOS accidentally.

> Apple can do whatever they want on their platform.

Actually no they can’t much of the world has laws to prevent such abuses of power.

> They don't allow NSFW apps on iOS even if it's user generated.

Nit: apps may show user-generated adult content (with some restrictions), as long as such content is not the main purpose of the app. So a “porn browser” would not be allowed, but an “internet browser” is.

Some channels on Telegram show up as not accessible to Apple users because they "distribute pornography" even in cases when that was not the main purpose of the channel. There were cases when some users reposted porn gifs to group chats, admins did not delete them, then the whole chat got banned after user reported the chat. Notice: it's not even the _app's_ main purpose, they police the content down to specific channels, so the apps may _not_ show NSFW content it seems. I wonder when they'll start blocking specific websites in Safari.

Telegram is Apple's own platform? Are you saying Apple is involved in something illegal by allowing Telegram to distribute software through the App Store, since people use it to dox Putin-aligned police in Belarus?

There is already a precedent for apple to not allow apps that doesn't align with its content policies even if user generated. Anything NSFW is not allowed by default and without explicit warnings. Porn is not allowed. Drug stores are not allowed. Gab is not allowed. Imageboards aren't. Why would this be different?

Apple owns the app store and the iOS platform. They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content. Customers expect that from apple. I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.

> They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content

They don't.

> Customers expect that from apple

They shouldn't

> I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.

It's parent's duty to protect their kid however they see fit, not Apple's.

> clicking on content

If you believe democracy to be unsightly and wrongful, then your believes are reactionary, and must be subject to rectification.

In which world is democracy doxing and planning violence against people?

Against people who, by all intents have literally sabotaged an election and installed themselves as authoritarian rulers?

Somehow in your definition democracy is something only allowed to happen organically, if forcefully torn from you by corruption and guns, "oh well".

In this one

This argument is completely undermined by Safari.

The worst ones are all private, so they can't be pointed to. But we do find out about their existence after they're broken up (by law enforcement action, not Facebook). E.g. the domestic terrorists that were planning to overthrow the Michigan State government were coordinating via private Facebook group. So there's one example for you.