- Apple has removed several apps from its App Store that allowed parents to track and limit their children’s screen time.
- The New York Times issued a report with complaints from competitor apps who suggested Apple was engaging in anti-competitive behavior.
- Apple denied this claim and said the removal was because the apps were abusing technology that enables third-party access to sensitive information.
Apple said Sunday that it has removed several parental control apps from its App Store because they put user privacy and security at risk, not because the company wants to stifle competition.
Apple removed apps that they say were abusing a technology called Mobile Device Management (MDM), which gives app developers access to sensitive information. “The information includes things like user location, browsing history, saved images and video, and more,” the company said in a statement on their website.
Apple released its statement in response to a New York Times report published Saturday, which suggested that the company removed the apps for anti-competitive reasons. “Apple has always supported third-party apps on the App Store that help parents manage their kids’ devices.” Apple said.
“Contrary to what The New York Times reported over the weekend, this isn’t a matter of competition. It’s a matter of security. In this app category, and in every category, we are committed to providing a competitive, innovative app ecosystem.”
The company went on to say that it had given the affected apps 30 days to submit updated software that did not violate its policies. It said many of the companies did make changes and were not removed afterward. Those that did not were removed from the App Store.
New York Times Report
On Saturday, the New York Times released a report that included statements from several app makers who complained that Apple had removed their products from the App Store after it launched its own similar tools.
The latest version of Apple’s iOS mobile operating system includes a feature called Screen Time, which allows users to see how much time they spend on their phone. The tool allows for content and privacy restrictions that parent’s often used to control how much time their children can spend on certain apps and websites.
According to the Times, over the past year, Apple has removed or restricted at least 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps. The report also says they have cracked down on several other lesser known apps and in some cases, forced companies to remove features that allowed for parental controls on apps.
The newspaper noted that on Thursday, the apps Kidslox and Qustodio filed a complaint with the European Union’s competition office. The two companies were among the most popular parental-control apps on the market, but Kidslox says business had drastically dropped since Apple forced changes to its app that has made it less useful than Apple’s own Screen Time tool.
Apple is also facing an antitrust complaint in Russian from Kaspersky Lab, a Russian cybersecurity firm that American security officials say has ties to the Russian government. The firm says Apple removed important features from its parental control app, and in addition to their antitrust complaint in Russia, they are also now exploring a similar complaint in Europe.
Accusations that Apple engages in anti-competitive behavior are not new, nor are they exclusive to the ScreenTime tool. In fact, Spotify and other streaming services have long complained that Apple gives its Apple Music service an unfair advantage over competitors. In March, Spotify filed an antitrust complaint against Apple with the European Union, alleging that Apple is hurting innovation and consumer choice with its Apple “tax” and restrictive rules in its App Store.
Apple Card Faces Investigation After Accusations of Gender Discrimination
- A popular Twitter thread has accused Apple Card, which is put out in partnership with Goldman Sachs, of gender bias.
- A programmer said he got 20 times the credit card limit as his wife, despite the fact that they file joint tax returns and the fact that she has a higher individual credit score than he does.
- Others said they faced similar problems, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, who now holds a ceremonial role at the company.
- Goldman Sachs insisted that gender is not a factor in card applications and approvals, but New York’s Department of Financial Services said it will investigate.
Thread Accusing Apple Card of Gender Bias Goes Viral
The New York Department of Financial Services says it will be looking into potential gender discrimination from Apple Card after several people, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, accused it of having a bias.
Problems with Apple Card, which is made in partnership with Goldman Sachs, first made their way to the surface when programmer and author David Heinemeier Hansson posted a twitter thread accusing it of sexism. He wrote that it approved him of a higher limit than his wife.
According to Hansson, even after his wife paid off her card in full, she was not allowed to spend until the next billing period.
He initially said that customer service was overall unhelpful when trying to address the problem. One day after posting his thread, however, he followed up to say that his wife’s limit was bumped up.
As for his wife’s experience with Apple, he says she spoke to two representatives. He claims that the first said it was not discrimination and blamed it on the algorithm.
The second encouraged his wife to check her credit score again. Hansson and his wife both ended up checking their scores and learned that his wife actually had a higher score than he did.
He continued to share his frustrations with this algorithm and its lack of transparency.
Steve Wozniak and Others Back Up the Claim
Once this thread blew up, many others said they had experienced a similar problem.
Just read this thread. My wife has a way better score than me, almost 850, has a higher salary and was given a credit limit 1/3 of mine. We had joked that maybe Apple is just sexist. Seems like it’s not a joke. Beyond f’ed up.— Carmine Granucci (@whoiscarmine) November 9, 2019
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, who now holds a ceremonial role at the company, also replied to Hansson. Wozniak said his wife got ten times less than he did, despite them having shared assets and accounts.
I’m a current Apple employee and founder of the company and the same thing happened to us (10x) despite not having any separate assets or accounts. Some say the blame is on Goldman Sachs but the way Apple is attached, they should share responsibility.— Steve Wozniak (@stevewoz) November 10, 2019
He also said his wife had difficulty with customer service, and could not use her card after paying it off as well.
Janet made the phone calls to the number given but got nowhere. She also has paid off her card totally but still can’t use it until the next billing cycle.— Steve Wozniak (@stevewoz) November 10, 2019
In a Sunday interview with Bloomberg, Wozniak elaborated on his concerns about Apple Card and the algorithm behind it.
“These sorts of unfairnesses bother me and go against the principle of truth. We don’t have transparency on how these companies set these things up and operate,” he told the outlet. “Our government isn’t strong enough on the issues of regulation. Consumers can only be represented by the government because the big corporations only represent themselves.”
“Algos obviously have flaws,” he added. “A huge number of people would say, ‘We love our technology but we are no longer in control.’ I think that’s the case.”
Goldman Sachs and New York’s DFS Respond
While some did respond to both Hansson and Wozniak saying they did not experience this, tweets accusing Apple Card of gender bias blew up, prompting several responses.
Goldman Sachs released a statement on Sunday saying that, “In all cases, we have not and will not make decisions based on factors like gender.”
“With Apple Card, your account is individual to you; your credit line is yours and you establish your own direct credit history,” the statement read. “Customers do not share a credit line under the account of a family member or another person by getting a supplemental card.”
They also said that applications are evaluated independently, looking at things like income, credit score, and debt management.
Linda Lacewell, the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services said she would be looking into the matter.
“We will work to investigate what may have gone wrong, and if the algorithm used by Apple Card did indeed promote unlawful discrimination we will take appropriate action,” she wrote in a Medium post on Sunday. “But this is not just about looking into one algorithm — DFS wants to work with the tech community to make sure consumers nationwide can have confidence that the algorithms that increasingly impact their ability to access financial services do not discriminate and instead treat all individuals equally and fairly no matter their sex, color of skin, or sexual orientation.”
She encouraged consumers who have been affected by this, as well as tech leaders who have commentary on it, to reach out to New York’s DFS.
See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (The Verge) (Bloomberg)
Instagram Will Test Hiding Likes in the US Starting This Week
- Instagram will start testing a feature this week that hides like counts on posts for some users in the United States.
- The feature has already been piloted in countries including Australia, Ireland, and Canada.
- Some say the change will help improve people’s well-being and allow them to focus on the content they post.
- Others doubt Instagram’s intentions, are concerned about its potential impact on businesses, and have suggested that features in the comment section are more of a problem.
Instagram CEO Announces Change
Instagram likes will disappear from public view for some accounts in the U.S. this week in an effort to help users focus more on content.
Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri officially announced the long-rumored plan at a Wired tech event in San Francisco on Friday and followed it up with a Twitter post.
“It’s about young people,” Mosseri said at the Wired25 conference. “The idea is to try to ‘depressurize’ Instagram, make it less of a competition and give people more space to focus on connecting with people that they love, things that inspire them.”
Mosseri added, “We will make decisions that hurt the business [in the short term] if they’re good for people’s well-being and health — because it has to be good for the business over the long-term.”
The change shouldn’t come as a complete surprise since Mosseri has talked about making this move in the past. In fact, Instagram has already been testing hidden likes for a few months in places like Canada, Brazil, Japan, Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, and Australia.
However, Instagram won’t be getting rid of likes altogether. Users will still be able to view their likes themselves, they just won’t be displayed publically to their followers anymore.
Reactions to the Change
The decision has received pretty mixed responses from users. Many are concerned about how this will impact marketing strategies for businesses, influencers, or emerging artists that use the platform for promotion. However, Karen Civil, a social media strategist, argued that influencers shouldn’t pay too much attention to how many likes their posts get.
Many others have supported the move, as they believe it will stop people from allowing likes to control their content. Some, like Kim Kardashian-West, have specifically focused more on how this move could impact people’s well-being.
“As far as mental health… I think taking the likes away and taking that aspect away from [Instagram] would be really beneficial for people,” she said Wednesday at the New York Times’ DealBook Conference ahead of the official announcement.
“I know the Instagram team has been having a bunch of conversations with people to get everyone’s take on that and they’re taking it really seriously, and that makes me happy,” she added.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey also praised the move on Saturday by retweeted Mosseri’s post and adding, “Great step.”
Meanwhile, Rapper Cardi B argued that the comment section should be a bigger concern. In a video posted to Instagram, she said she noticed toxic behavior increasing on the platform after users were given the option to like and reply to comments.
“If anything is affecting Instagram right now, I really feel it’s the way the comments have been done or have been changing these past few years.”
“Because I feel people been saying the most weirdest shit, been starting the craziest arguments, been starting to race bait, all because of comments, because they want to get to the top, they want to get the most reactions.”
Fellow artist Nicki Minaj also chimed in on the news, vowing to stop using the platform altogether.
She argued that the move is bad for independent artists who use Instagram for power and exposure. She also suggested, among other things, that Instagram might be hiding likes to manipulate what posts users see on their feed.
A Wave of Demetrication
Instagram appears to be the latest platform experimenting with what many describe as “demetrication,” where social media companies reduce the importance of public metrics.
Facebook, Instagram’s parent company, has also been testing hiding likes on its platform for users in Australia. Earlier this year, YouTube changed the way it displays subscriber counts.
On several occasions, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey has hinted that he too was reconsidering whether the platform should publicize metrics. Twitter denied that it plans to remove likes and retweets but did say it was looking at the features as part of wider moves to “improve the health” of conversations happening on the site.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (Business Insider) (CBS News)
Deadspin Editor Fired After Ignoring “Stick to Sports” Order
- Deadspin’s Interim Editor-in-Chief Barry Petchesky was fired after he disobeyed an order from the executive director of the site’s parent company, G/O Media.
- Though the site has often been known to post non-sports related stories, the order instructed Deadspin to only post sports-related content moving forward.
- At the same time, employees are embroiled in another dispute with G/O Media after it implemented a new auto-play ad feature on the site.
Editor-in-Chief Doesn’t “Stick to Sports”
Deadspin’s Interim Editor-in-Chief Barry Petchesky announced he had been fired Tuesday morning after disobeying an executive who ordered the site to only publish sports-related stories.
Deadspin, an online sports news website owned by G/O Media, has been known to occasionally break away from sports on its site, so much so that it’s become a running joke, even receiving its own category on the home page and merchandise with the label “Stick to Sports.”
Monday, however, G/O Media’s recently-appointed editorial director Paul Maidment ordered employees to refrain from writing non-sports related stories in the future.
“To create as much great sports journalism as we can requires a 100% focus of our resources on sports,” Maidment said in a statement to employees. “And it will be the sole focus. Deadspin will write only about sports and that which is relevant to sports in some way.”
“Where such subjects touch on sports, they are fair game for Deadspin,” the statement continues. “Where they do not, they are not. We have plenty of other sites that write about politics, pop culture, the arts, and the rest, and they’re the appropriate place for such work.”
Instead of “sticking to sports,” however, Petchesky did the exact opposite by converting the website’s front page into a collection of non-sports related stories. Staff then tagged those stories with the label “Stick to Sports.”
Deadspin became part of G/O Media in April after being bought by the private equity firm Great Hill Partners. Before the acquisition, the site was part of the Gizmodo Media Group owned by Univision. In the deal, G/O Media also acquired sites like Gizmodo, The Onion, Kotaku, and Jezebel.
“The Concourse,” Deadspin’s non-sports category, features everything from political commentary to an annual “Hater’s Guides to the Williams-Sonoma Catalog.” The site has also dipped into video game news, one 2014 article receiving high praise for its deep dive into sexism and harassment in the gamer community.
In fact, according to former editor Timothy Burke, those stories were some of the site’s most-viewed, despite the fact that The New York Times reports the section only made up about one of every 50 posts.
Fallout After Petchesky’s Firing
About thirty minutes after Petcheksy’s firing, the Gizmodo Media Group Union confirmed the termination, adding, “This will not stand.”
The following day, the site’s founder, Will Leitch, addressed Petchesky’s ousting.
“There is also no more Deadspin person than Barry,” Leitch said. “He has been with the site its entire history. He covered the Westminster Dog Show for Deadspin in 2007 WHILE A JOURNALISM STUDENT.”
By Tuesday evening, the site’s main page reverted back to sports stories, though as of Wednesday afternoon, several non-sports stories still remain on the home page, as well. Following the change, GMG Union tweeted again, saying Deadspin staffers did not play any role in the new changes to the front page.
The New York Times then reported that two sources with “full knowledge of the situation” said Maidment was in direct control of Deadspin on Tuesday.
The same day, senior Editor Diana Moskovitz announced that she had given her two-weeks notice the week prior.
“What happened today — and everything that preceded it — are among the reasons I decided to move on,” she said.
The situation follows Deadspin’s former Editor-in-Chief Megan Greenwell leaving the site in August after disagreeing with several top executives, including Maidment.
In response to revolt, Maidment issued another statement.
“I sent a memo to Deadspin staff stating that our sports site should be focused on sports coverage,” he said. “As I made clear in that note, sports touches on nearly every aspect of life — from politics to business to pop culture and more.”
“We believe that Deadspin reporters and editors should go after every conceivable story, as long as it has something to do with sports,” he continued. “We are sorry that some on the Deadspin staff don’t agree with that editorial direction and refuse to work within that incredibly broad mandate.”
Leitch then accused G/O Media executives of potentially attempting to ruin to the website.
“The only way you could buy Deadspin and say, ‘Here are some edicts and now everyone follow them,’ is if you never read Deadspin in the last 10 years,” he said. It feels like they are either trying to kill the site and squeeze whatever money they can out of it or get rid of the entire staff. Or both because there’s no sense they have any plan.”
The Intersection of Sports and Politics
The situation with Deadspin and G/O Media has breached another debate: how sports news outlets cover other topics like politics, especially as the two become increasingly related.
According to Maidment, the staff at Deadspin has full range to talk about sports-related issues like the NCAA saying it will allow student-athletes to profit from their names, images, and likenesses or about the debate around the NBA, China, and Hong Kong.
But there’s also been some concern that the site’s freedom to publish such stories may be stripped away in the future.
“If [the] past year has shown anything, it’s that when a company says ‘stick to sports, except when there’s a connection to politics,’ what they mean is ‘stick to sports,’” Wall Street Journal sports columnist Jason Gay said. “It’s meant to have a chilling effect. This is like buying a hat and wearing it as a shoe.”
Auto-Play Ad Complaints
Deadspin employees and employees from the other sites have also expressed discontent with another decision by G/O Media. Last week, G/O Media landed a seven-figure advertising deal, but employees were reportedly not happy with the move because that deal includes sound-on, auto-play video ads.
Employees claimed to the sites had all received a ton of negative feedback from their readers, which is why, on Monday, they directly addressed these concerns to their audiences.
In a series of identical articles, they said that they were “as upset with the current state of our site’s user experience as you are.” The posts then went on to say that none of the individual sites had any control over those ads.
“Editorial staffers at all levels of this company have made our concerns known in various conversations with members of G/O Media’s senior leadership team,” the article concluded. “We think it would be good for them to hear from you, as well.”
“This isn’t what any of us signed up for,” The Daily Beast quoted one staffer as saying. “It’s amateurish and pushing longtime readers away and making the sites difficult to enjoy.”
Those posts were then deleted shortly after they went up.
“The GMG Union has been informed that posts across our websites asking for reader feedback on an autoplay ad campaign were taken down by management,” GMG Union said in a tweet. “We condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.”
The union followed up Tuesday by claiming that G/O Media executives had disabled the forwarding address to the email provided in those posts.