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: 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.