SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Apple Comes Under Media Fire in China
Apple Inc. has come under fire by Chinese state media, which claims the U.S. technology giant isn't doing enough to block texts and images trafficking in prohibited content including pornography, gambling and counterfeit goods.
In a barrage that began last week, China's state-controlled news agency Xinhua and at least four state-supported media outlets have published criticism of Apple for not doing enough to filter banned content on its iMessage service.
State broadcaster CCTV joined in Tuesday on another front, saying Apple's app store allowed illegal gambling apps disguised as official lottery apps.
[...] On Monday, China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other top government agencies said they would impose new requirements requiring mobile-phone makers to include spam-filtering features.
Also at 9to5Mac.
Related: India Regulator Threatens to Ban Iphones Over Anti-Spam App
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:03PM (9 children)
Under Capitalism, the weight of your vote depends on the outcomes of your previous votes; the more your previous votes create wealth for society, the more power over decision-making you're given, and the more your previous votes squander wealth, the less power over decision-making you have left.
A democratic vote is given out freely to both the scholar and the fool, and that makes it totally worthless. Always, in the end, democracy entails 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:31PM (5 children)
Eh go shill somewhere else, your ideology stupidly worships profit over the good of humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:37PM (4 children)
I want humanity to profit; that is the good of humanity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @06:26PM (3 children)
Incorrect. Humanity would have been MUCH better served if solar power / electric vehicle / sustainable infrastructure was built in the 70s. Instead we got oil companies pushing legislation and US imperialism in order to increase their profits.
You are a short sighted fool bending your ideology to try and fit humanity's evolving identity. Capitalism has its place, but at this point it should not be 100% of human activity like you wish, even with your idealistic "voluntary contracts" version of reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @09:09PM (2 children)
It took the computer industry and it's concurrent development of materiakl sciences, multiple nobel prizes and huge increase of scale to bring the technology where it is today.
Technology advances along with civilization. I remember in the 70's when solar was ~$100/watt (today about $0.30/watt), one hundred fold more economical. Integrated circuits follow(-ed?) Moore's observation of halving in size every 18 months. Solar follows a similar exponential curve at a halving in $/kw every 4 years and has since their creation in the 1800's. Also, energy makes use of several technologies: the solar cells themselves, panels, inverters and storage. Any one technology, while useful in its own, is limited towards being useful as an energy substitute, some of which did not make sens developing until other parts where shown to be viable. And it wasn't, likely still not possible to predict what some of the concurrent technologies are. An example is the used to use lead acid batteries (still do in most cases) and would have been very unlikely to pursue lithium batteries which were popularized by laptop computers.
http://rameznaam.com/2011/03/17/the-exponential-gains-in-solar-power-per-dollar/ [rameznaam.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @08:15AM (1 child)
This is begging the question. The way we build cities is designed around and to service the personal ownership of automobiles that are run on petrol. A less capitalist society would have gone with electric public transit from the start and could have made the transition to solar power without lithium batteries. Then, the incentives to develop solar panels would have come from that market instead of it being a side effect of node miniaturization.
As for computer themselves, so what? I don't know about you, but computers do nothing for quality of living from where I sit. Sure, increases in productivity *should* have made things better. But it didn't. There more poor people. More hungry people. About the same life expectancies and those last few years suck worse and worse... Sure, on paper better productivity improves people's quality of life. But overtime people just repopulate and the number even out only the income keeps being more and more concentrated at the top.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02 2018, @12:24PM
We've seen what less capitalistic societies do; they drive people into the ground and crush them into the mud.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:32PM (2 children)
The problem with that otherwise interesting logic, is that under capitalism as you define it, even if you personally contribute nothing, you get to have more power just because Grandpa was lucky or smart. If the counters reset every generation, that would be a meritocracy, and society would probably benefit overall (individual cases could still be used as counter-examples). In the current system, it's starting to look a lot like the privilege-by-birth system that ended up with lots of heads literally rolling, not that long ago.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:45PM
Grandpa was really great at making decisions to grow society's wealth, and so he himself grew wealthy as society handed him more and more power over decision-making.
Well, guess what? Grandpa ALSO decided to bequeath that wealth to one of his descendants; who are you to question that choice now? Who are you to say that some organization of paper-pushing bureaucrats would make better choices for that wealth? Your position is untenable.
So what if grandpa's descendant is a playboy squanderer?!
Such a squanderer will either lose his decision-making power and thereby save the rest of us from his future poor decisions, or he'll end up being the figurehead conduit through which a whole team of educated, shrewd, money-making decision-makers in various investment firms allocate that wealth effectively.
Listen, wealth tends to dissipate in 3 generations or so, and if it does gather for many generations around a few people, well then that's probably because those people are pretty damn good allocating those resources effectively—not only for themselves, but also for the reste of society. This is even more true under a limited government, because then those wealthy few won't be corrupted by the temptation to play with the men with guns in order to maintain or gain their wealth.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:52PM
Put another way: You're saying "Fuck multi-generation projects"; people should have to build everything up from scratch just to prove they're worthy of the hair on their chests, amirite?
A descendant shares DNA, cultural values, training, experiences, networking, etc. Why would you just throw that out as though it means nothing?
If your philosophical position leads you to conclude that it's better to dissipate wealth (including pedigree) rather than build atop it, then you should really re-consider your philosophy. This need to reconsider is doubly true when the means by which to dissipate that wealth is at the point of a gun, against people's will. You're not on the right side of this.