“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.
I don't know why you feel it's loaded if the language of "targeted group" is accompanied with every single group that is a protected class.
> 1.1.1 Defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, national/ethnic origin, or other targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group. Professional political satirists and humorists are generally exempt from this requirement.
This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
There's nothing objectionable about arguing that a particular piece of bad press that a big tech company gets is false or misleading or not actually bad. Doing so doesn't even imply that you generally like that big tech company or disagree with other criticism of it.
That's one of the things I routinely find frustrating about this site. Though, on the whole, I still think responses on HN are more reasonable than many other places in the internet.
It doesn’t cover every protected class. You can look them up.
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole. The headline is hyperbolic. The fact is that Apple isn’t saying ICE is a “protected class”. The content of the article doesn’t even back this point up.
> Folks generally want to discuss the facts here, not hyperbole
Are you new here? No they dont. Dolks here generally discuss like folks anywhere else, riffing off headlines and going by feels. We are overall more educated then average, more wealthy then average and biased tech way. That is it.
The fact is that neither the headline nor the article claims that the definition of "protected class" being used is the same exact legal definition used in the US.
The fact is that Apple is saying ICE is a "targeted group" and lays out every single legally protected class along with it. You can look them up if you are unaware.
The fact is that the article backs this point by citing the exact TOS.
>This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
Demanding rhetorical precision is a wholly predictable backlash from 20yr of language games being a key element of a lot of the rhetoric that got us to where we are.
It’s a bit funny because even the comment is a bit of a language game
> This "ackchyually" behavior from HN is so bizarre.
At any rate, I don’t usually care for precision but this case seems particularly egregious and can actually cause misunderstanding. At least, I misunderstood what the article was about from reading the headline.
“Protected class” has a legal definition.
“Targeted group” is the language that the Apple guidelines use.
This annoys me because I agree that ICE shouldn’t be a protected class (e.g. have the same legal status as minorities)… but no one is saying that they are.