If the fee is a “tax” and free speech costs $8/month

Thanks Twitter CEO Elon MuskApple faces fresh criticism about its App Store fees and whether its claims to content moderation somehow stifle free speech. .

App Store Pricing: Negotiating

Let’s start with App Store fees. Now some developer has to pay Apple his 30% of software sales or subscription income. Not all developers do that. Value less than $1 million We also pay just 15%. (Developers who don’t charge for their apps don’t pay at all.)

In return, developers get access to the world’s most secure app store, the industry’s best developer tools, and the least fragmented mobile platform. Note: Developers must use Apple’s own payment processing system.

Now, there is a good argument that the fees themselves are no longer appropriate. 30% is pretty much the industry standard, but it’s been a while since cost was weighed against economies of scale.

At the same time, it seems perfectly appropriate that Apple should be entitled to make a business out of its App Store offerings. So the debate over fees inevitably (as I keep saying) how long should they benot whether they exist at all.

It’s a fee, not a tax

I think regulators everywhere are scrutinizing these fees and will likely come to some kind of compromise, but calling them an “Apple tax” is inappropriate. Less tax than any retailer’s markup. car dealer Also tunnel boring project.

However, the company proposing bill the user As the right to share your content in a way that can be seen begins to claim that Apple’s fees are a tax on free speech, we can’t help but see a massive moral conflict.

How can free speech be free when it costs $8 a month? And when companies evict most of their employees, very few warnings, what is the cost? What about interest? Severance pay?legal costs justified Employment Law Violation?

…which will moderate the content

Anyone who has ever visited a website has encountered the GDPR. This is a set of legal requirements for Europe in the digital age. They range from websites, platforms such as Apple and Google and content companies such as Twitter.

While Many requirements within GDPR, one limitation is the need to police certain forms of discussion, such as promoting hate crimes, CSAM content, etc. Considering this, don’t feel safe at all One of the world’s largest social media companies hired a team to work with CSAM content only one person.

Multi-billion dollar companies typically have teams to maintain GDPR compliance, but most of them are currently being laid off or laid off at Twitter. resigned.

Reduced content moderation is already influence advertisers on that platformwho found your brand’s message Placed next to highly offensive posts – A few from the presidentThe risks to advertisers are clear.Also, the company doesn’t seem to Compliant with FTC regulationsthat’s why Some reporters claim.

Outside of Europe and the US, there are countries with stricter moderation requirements, some even stricter.

Platforms that distribute poorly moderated apps risk falling into a legal minefield. Avoiding questionable environments is a smart business practice. For Apple, we also need to ensure that the software we distribute meets these needs. We know that apps that do not maintain such moderation will be removed. it has done so before.

You are not obligated to receive (or click on) any ads

Apple is a company that I see as being more honest than others, focusing on business value in an increasingly uncertain world. don’t spend on advertising On platforms that distribute questionable content.

Considering Apple probably accounts for at least 4% of Twitter’s revenue, this is notable.

Remember the little animations around WWDC and Take Note keynote tweets? Apple paid for them. It paid a lot.

I think this way: Steve Jobs Run Apple’s critically acclaimed “Crazy Ones” ad, did not post on sites that were not responsible for content moderation. Ad campaigns featuring Albert Einstein, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Muhammad Ali perform very poorly on platforms where hate speech is considered acceptable.

These risks — litigation, brand damage, etc. — represent many advertisers (not just Apple). Stop spending on Twitter’s platformDoing so is not an argument against free speech. It is an argument in favor of brand protection and collective responsibility.

So what is going on?

Apple is in trouble.It feels like they tried quietly to convince one of the larger profile developers to better limit herself amidst the various laws and regulations around content moderation, the response is criticism and we can’t hide the fact that we also need free speech personal responsibility Conversational and supportive environment.someone will have to I don’t think soor face serious consequences.

follow me twitter Also Mastodonor join Appleholic’s Bar & Grill When apple discussion MeWe’s group.