Another headline that is a straight up lie.

Lina Kahn isn’t a regulator of Apple. She’s an FTC chair with a specific political goal to break up large corporations. She isn’t a neutral official.

Apple didn’t want to pay to give Lina Kahn time on their platform. I think that was unwise, but it’s also not censorship or coercion.

If she, or Jon Stewart, were censored, we wouldn’t be seeing their conversation here. They have in fact proven that the danger she is claiming to exist, does not exist.

Also, Jon Stewart is far from some kind of neutral interlocutor. He has a particular kind of political axe to grind. Some people love him, and some people hate him, but there is nothing requiring Apple to provide him with a show if they don’t like his approach, any more than any other interviewer. The parts of his show I saw just weren’t very good.

> specific political goal to break up large corporations

you mean regulatory job of enforcing the antitrust laws that were passed by multiple Congresses? She's not making this stuff up she's enforcing antitrust laws that haven't been enforced for decades which is part of the reason our society is so unequal and the economy so centralized

> Apple didn’t want to pay to give Lina Kahn time on their platform.

Jon Stewart wanted her on the show, they said no. That's them exercising their censorship power. If Amazon says you can't sell a book on their cite because they don't like you that's them exercising censorship power too.

> If she, or Jon Stewart, were censored, we wouldn’t be seeing their conversation here.

Just because Apple doesn't own other platforms like YouTube and Comedy Central doesn't mean they're unable to exercise censorship.

> there is nothing requiring Apple to provide him with a show if they don’t like his approach

For sure Apple can make editorial decisions but the government's lawyers claim: "Apple’s conduct extends beyond just monopoly profits and even affects the flow of speech. For example, Apple is rapidly expanding its role as a TV and movie producer and has exercised that role to control content"

They didn't just block Lina Khan they blocked discussions about China and AI. As more power is concentrated in fewer hands and fewer media providers that's something to consider when enforcing antitrust laws. In Khan's words:

“I think it just shows one of the dangers of what happens when you concentrate so much power and so much decision-making in a small number of companies.”

No. I’m not talking about enforcement of anti-trust laws as passed by congress. Do some research about Khan’s own theories and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Choosing not to commission a show on a particular subject, is not censorship.

And Khan is simply wrong in the claim you quoted. In fact it’s absurd. There is no shortage of commentary on both AI, and China. Apple chose not to buy a few shows about these topics from one person - that’s all. The fact that Khan claims this is ‘dangerous’, when you can literally watch any commentary you like including hers on Apple’s platforms shows that she is out of touch with reality.

“Straight up lie”?

You have absolutely no grounds to make that claim.

So, I hope you get paid to come here to HN and post stuff like that - because if you’re not, it doesn’t really reflect well on you…

The burden of proof is on you: where’s the public denial by Apple?

However, I did find this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/business/media/jon-stewar...

Headlines lie all the time. Generally nobody denies them because that just gives more for the media to write about.

The straight up lie is that Apple was ‘caught’, or was ‘censoring’ anything. Neither part of that is true. It’s also not true that Lina Kahn is Apple’s ‘own’ regulator. She oversees all trade.

The headline is therefore a lie.

Apple didn’t want to pay for content about her, and asked Stewart, whose show they were paying for not to produce it. Stewart was free to discuss this publicly, and he did. That’s all there is to this. Those are the actual facts.

Saying this is censorship is a lie.

I don't find this article newsworthy, but your very reaction/response makes me pay much closer attention to it!

Lina Khan is the FTC chairperson. The FTC regulates monopolies, so it can be said Lina Khan regulates monopolies. [Assumption by the FTC] Apple is a monopoly.

Based on this assumption we can say that Lina Khan regulates Apple (and others).

Apple did not want to produce an episode of a show which might mention Apple (or companies like it) in a negative way. This would likely have happened because the FTC has increasingly focused on tech monopolies.

Is the headline really that wrong? The fact that we publicly learned that Apple didn't want to produce an episode featuring the FTC chairperson is what is referred to as censorship here. Of course that is simply editorial control by the producers - but it does feel like a protective move, retaliation or something in between.

I don't find the story interesting (no company would produce content which could make the company itself look bad), but I do not believe it to be wrong as you allege.

Firstly, while your characterization of Khan is accurate, it’s a huge stretch to call her Apple’s “own” regulator, so yes, I’d say that’s clearly a misrepresentation intended to make what Apple did seem worse than it is - I.e. a lie.

But also, as you point out - it was a normal editorial decision, not censorship. I personally thing it was unwise - I think it would have been better for them to produce the show.

However, we aren’t talking about your interpretation of the article. We basically agree on that.

My comment was that the headline is a lie. I think that’s accurate.

1. Apple didn’t censor anything. 2. Apple didn’t get ‘caught’ doing anything. 3. Khan isn’t Apple’s own regulator.

Even if we agree to disagree on #3. The headline writer knew both 1 and 2 because they read the article. Therefore they lied.

Thanks t888 for presenting us with this veritable Brazilian barbecue [rodízio] of fallacies:

- Straw Man;

- False Dilemma;

- Begging the Question;

- Oversimplification;

- Ad Hominem;

Dear user t888, I looked into your previous posts and found that you display an uncanny proclivity to quarrel here on HN in defense of Apple’s corporate image.

- Would you care to comment?

Your characterization is inaccurate. I don’t think you’ll be able to find a single positive thing I’ve said about Apple, unless you are referring to where I implied that Xcode has improved.

I don’t like dishonest headlines and vague smears, which I see too much of in a site that is meant to be known for curious discussion. Apple isn’t the only victim - I just happen to be noticing it today.

Also of note, the author of the article has the same axe to grind.

“Jon Stewart says Apple told him not to interview FTC chair Lina Khan”:

https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2024/apr/02/jon-stewart-in...