- cross-posted to:
- usnews@lemy.lol
- antitrust@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@lemy.lol
- antitrust@lemmy.ml
This week, Jon Stewart devoted his edition of The Daily Show to tackling a topic that he claims his former bosses at Apple barred him from exploring. “I wanted to have you on a podcast and Apple asked us not to do it,” the late-night host said to his guest Monday night, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, referencing the companion podcast to his former series, The Problem with Jon Stewart that ended last October. “They literally said, ‘Please don’t talk to her.’”
Stewart’s remarks arrive less than two weeks after the U.S. Justice Department sued Apple for exploiting its monopoly in the tech market and violating antitrust laws. The lawsuit highlights Apple’s “power over content creators and newspapers” and notes that the company’s conduct “even affects the flow of speech,” adding, “Apple is rapidly expanding its role as a TV and movie producer and has exercised that role to control content.”
After joking that Apple killed Khan’s potential appearance on the podcast because “I didn’t think they cared for you,” Stewart alleged that Apple also told him not to discuss artificial intelligence. “They wouldn’t let us do even that dumb thing we just did in the first act on AI,” he said, referring to a segment earlier in that episode on the “false promise” of that technology. Stewart then asked Khan: “What is that sensitivity? Why are they so afraid to even have these conversations out in the public sphere?”
Khan replied, “I think it just shows the danger of what happens when you concentrate so much power and so much decision making in a small number of companies.”
You must log in or register to comment.
When you work for Apple, Apple gets to tell you what to do. Same goes for any corporate owned media outlet.
Jon Stewart has more than enough money to just quit, which he did. Most normal folks do not have this luxury so they tow the line.
Welcome to the reality that the US economic system.
No real free speech, no real agency in our economy, captive regulators that like to masquerade as populist heros but rarely actually do any real damage to sociopathic corporations.
Common misconception, it’s actually “toe the line”. I used to think it was tow too.
I guess that makes sense, like saying ‘I’m doing ten toes’ when you’re walking, you toe the line means your walking close to the line but not over?
It came from the navy, with everyone standing with their toe to an imaginary line.
Toe the line… Haha.
Can you send a picture of your toe? Please I need it.
Please.
Potatoes are not friends
“He who pays the piper, calls the tune” is an old saying and not any less true today. If your livelihood and that of your family depends on someone, very, very few people will antagonize this someone.
State owned news media sounds like a bad idea from communistic countries, but nevertheless, plenty of European countries have just that, and it’s noteworthy how it’s much less biased than the commercial outlets. The people pay the piper.
It actually works in democratic countries where the government is representative of the people, so that any single party can’t push their agenda to the media by laws. On the contrary it happens more often that the media is told to keep a straight line if they go too far in any direction.
It’s no wonder it doesn’t work in dictatorships, and I don’t think it would work in two party politics, but in European countries the state media is very likely the less biased one.
PBS exists 😶
**It’s not state owned.
Though the people do pay them, so I guess that’s the important part.
Also, NPR.
I knew I was forgetting one. But yes, a state ownd independent media would be nice. I’d be grateful just for reinstating the fairness doctrine at this point
In Dutch we say: “wiens brood men eet, diens woord men spreekt” which convolutedly translates to: “who’s bread one eats, thine word one speaks”… which shows this is present in many cultures.
I sympathize with the cynicism in your last paragraph, but I push a little optimism back on a couple points. 1: our capability for speech may be limited by the corporations who have grabbed control over our media platforms, but insofar as freedom of speech refers to our ability to speak freely without retaliation from the government, we do still have real free speech. It’s a juvenile point, but given events in the last few years it’s not a right I take for granted as I did previously. That being said, I did just watch a video of FBI agents interrogating a woman in front of her house for posting non-violent content on Facebook relating to Gaza that you can add to a pile of evidence that the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech, so… that’s not good.
2: Regulatory authority has become almost laughably meek, granted, but you’re commenting on a video of one of the most aggressive regulators to hold the position in as long as I’m aware. This is a powerful sign that regulatory capture is not inevitable if we care enough to vote for candidates who will appoint strong regulators – even if it hurts our pride to do so (<<conscientious vote objectors).
the government is frequently toeing the line on free speech
We need to have a lemmy-wide class on the phrase “toe the line” because this is the 2nd time it’s been used incorrectly in this thread.
I think what you mean to say is “pushing the envelope”. To “toe the line” means to support and parrot what an authority body says, even if you personally have different ideas, like Sanders endorsing Biden. What the government is doing is infringing on free speech.
Jon Stewart has more than enough money to just quit, which he did.
Celebrity is often its own reward. And Stewart wasn’t getting much coverage when he didn’t have a show, despite some very sincere and fervent lobbying efforts during his retirement period.
No real free speech, no real agency in our economy, captive regulators that like to masquerade as populist heros but rarely actually do any real damage to sociopathic corporations.
One of the more infuriating bits about liberal agitprop shows is how fucking devoid of agitprop they actually are. Yeah, guys like Stewart and Colbert and Oliver can go on rhetorical tirades about the Big Evil Business Thing. But when push comes to shove, what do they actually advocate? Noncompliance? Organized revolt? A general strike? Confrontations with abusive and cartelized law enforcement? Any kind of material self-defense or defense of one’s friends and neighbors? Anything that might violate the latest round of right-wing prohibitions on health care or gender or speech?
Or do they just put on a “Rally to Restore Sanity” that tells people activism begins and ends with voting, in an election system that’s increasingly threadbare?
The fact that Jon Stewart worked for Apple for a podcast and is now again on television working for some TV station shows that he has very little to offer in the way of anything meaningful. He had more than enough notoriety to start a podcast in his basement where he could say anything he wanted and get compelling guests. He has more than enough money to hire a crew and create a self-produced show online and get real viewership. People should really ask themselves why he is sticking with the big companies. It’s because he likes the money and is an expert at getting the narrative out there. The Daily Show has always been lowest common denominator “subversion” that takes itself seriously enough to shame non-approved worldviews but not enough to be held accountable in any meaningful way. It’s like if a teenager was a show.
Love or hate Tucker Carlson he is doing what Jon Stewart should have done years ago.
Tucker and Stewart are both just the dead end of modern entertainment journalism. Guys who haven’t been relevant in nearly a decade showing back up on mediums with declining user bases to appeal to an audience that’s getting older and grumpier and more out-of-touch than their Boomer-era peers from the early '00s.
Good reminder that Monday’s The Daily Show is Jon Stewart day
Yeah, I don’t even watch the other ones. Sorry other people. Just change it to the weekly show at this point
The other hosts have their moments, but they ain’t Jonny Boy.
Nobody is Jonny Boy, except maybe Johnny Boy, but you gotta give the other folks a shot. We need more.
I’d like to see Craigers come back for a show during this period without a permanent host.
Desi Lydic has been killing it as host. Very happy she’s the host for the rest of the week.
Great comedic timing.
Lena Khan is amazing and taught me the word monopsylony. Absolutely stoked that Biden chose her and the fact that she is going so hard on creating a competitive environment
I want people to understand that when they vote for a president they’re also voting for all the administrative appointments as well. The stakes of who is president is already high enough, but if you want people like Lena Khan in charge, that also comes from your presidential vote.
As I’m Australian, I can’t do much haha. But I do know that the vibe on corporations and monoplane monopolies is being imported into Australia from the US particularly around our supermarkets and airlines
You mean “monopsony”?
Sorry, yeah that’ll teach me for writing before I’ve woken up
Is this the “30 Rock” vertical integration equivalent?
and taught me the word monopsylony
mo·nop·so·ny
noun.
ECONOMICS.
a market situation in which there is only one buyer. Definitions from Oxford
Man I wish he’d somehow start that podcast back up. It was so good. I really watch the show but the podcast I listen to every time it came out.
Edit: hold up, there might be hope. After making this post on a whim I checked on the podcast and there was a one minute trailer from February saying stick around he wants to do something with the podcast feed again. How about that? I mean almost 2 months ago so not quick but maybe hope.
deleted by creator
Apple is a monopoly that “affects the flow of speech” yet I know nothing of any of this and am completely unaffected.
I don’t get it. Just buy different phones.
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but if a monopoly was powerful enough to “affect the flow of speech”, wouldn’t they try to use that power to ensure you know nothing of it?
My ipad is a glorified notebook. I don’t get any news from Apple, Google or the usual suspects because I assume it is all curated distraction bait. I learn all I need to know about how things are going by looking out my car window when driving through town. (It’s not going well)
That’s super cool and all, I’m sure that is a sufficient sample size to be well informed, but now I’m confused as to your main point.
Do you mean to imply you don’t understand the issue with Apple controlling a massive amount of information because your lifestyle is representative of the majority of people?
Or do you mean that news has no potential value and as such is not worth protecting from bad actors?
Or do you mean that because some people are less aware of and/or dont care about being fed misinformation, they are not worth protecting regardless of any damage that might have on society as a whole?
My main point is that you are expecting the impossible if you think a company with more cash on hand than the federal government is ever going to do anything but manipulate you. If anything this drama is either for show or an effort by the government to make Apple do even more of their bidding. You will never get fair and balanced reporting or non-manipulative “entertainment” from these fortune 500s. It’s a lost cause. Find independent sources and look to them with skepticism because short of seeing it with your own eyes that’s as close to the truth as you will get.
Your English teachers wrong “off topic” on your essays a lot , didn’t they?
Ironically I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Ah, got it. We are letting perfect be the enemy of good, and abandoning those who dont to their fate (even if we are all shackled together).
We have no power to effect this situation at all.
Cool.
How do you like the fact that Apple news on iOS affects headlines for literally everyone due to visibility on iOS, and thus will still affect you.
Or that their ownership of AppleTV and now Apple+ puts them in direct position to edit that speech, even if you see it elsewhere and don’t know Apple did it.
That’s the point. They’re huge.
Just don’t use iphones or apple products. It’s a solvable problem. I recommend books. Any history book about a great civilization can explain what is happening now better than the news or movies anyway.
Okay you’re either missing the point that those platforms extend beyond Apple products, or willfully ignoring that.
Apple has spread its network wide, same as Amazon and Disney.
“jusy don’t buy from them” seriously misunderstands how wide their reach is.
My solution is to deny revenue to companies you disagree with. What is your proposal?
Not ignoring the issue and advocating to regulation and breakup of companies that carry this level of power.
Because not buying apple does literally less than nothing to stop them when they are out there potentially purchasing entire movie studios and chipfabricators.
What, you’re never going to watch movies that Apple (later) owns, and avoid using any tech product that an Apple Silicon fab created?
No you aren’t, because how would you know unless you’re obsessively tracking all the subbrands and shell companies.
Honestly what was he expecting? I think it was shitty and morally shady of him to even take Apple’s money, and he got what he should have expected.
Like working for Paramount is really any god damn different?
You can use that excuse sure. But apple having and wanting to keep good relations with China is expected, and taking their money and complaining about their shadyness, would be like taking money from Starbucks and then being surprised that they don’t like your anti union stories.
