Apple fundraisers $50M for independent artists

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
27,386
paywalled and i dont see any B for billions in whats visible. i see "The tech giant led a $50 million fundraising round"(led, not donated) though...
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
3,894
paywalled and i dont see any B for billions in whats visible. i see "The tech giant led a $50 million fundraising round"(led, not donated) though...
GD paywall and your 2 free reads. Sorry! that was terrible of me and I feel bad.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,066
Kind of an inaccurate title. I could only see the first part of the article, but it looked like they invested in a company that supports music artists.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,259
What's that even supposed to mean? I have ideas, but I'd like to check.
It means if Apple doesn’t like what you are saying, they will remove you from their platform. The coordinated deplatformings are particularly nasty.

As I said, don’t be too independent. You can use curse words and depict many vices. Just don’t be independent.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,200
It means if Apple doesn’t like what you are saying, they will remove you from their platform. The coordinated deplatformings are particularly nasty.

As I said, don’t be too independent. You can use curse words and depict many vices. Just don’t be independent.
Oh, please. I thought this might be it. I'm not going to get into a debate here, but I will say that free speech lets companies decide what they host. Apple is not a horrible oppressor.
 

auntjemima

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 1, 2014
Messages
7,806
Oh, please. I thought this might be it. I'm not going to get into a debate here, but I will say that free speech lets companies decide what they host. Apple is not a horrible oppressor.
They are an oppressor if they can decide what is free speech and what isn't. Not to be devil's advocate, but that is kinda the definition, no?
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,200
They are an oppressor if they can decide what is free speech and what isn't. Not to be devil's advocate, but that is kinda the definition, no?
Gonna try to negotiate this carefully without going too far into politics, but: not really, even if you think social sites should be forced to publish all otherwise legal content (I disagree on that, too, but that's another debate). Apple Music, iTunes and the App Store are, well, stores; Apple has every right to determine what it carries in its stores so long as it's not being anti-competitive or offering content that breaks the law by itself. Your favourite burger place isn't required to carry sushi.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
6,324
They are an oppressor if they can decide what is free speech and what isn't. Not to be devil's advocate, but that is kinda the definition, no?
Then the entire world basically is a oppressor. Don't take what we have in America as the standard in the rest of the world. You can be fined and/or arrested for your speech in most parts of the world. As shitty it might be. It is their platform and they can do as they wish. You just would hope they would enforce the rules equally but no platform does. Free speech doesn't even have long in America either. Certain groups in our government atm are just wiping their ass with the constitution.
 
Top