Apple’s New Emulator Policy Is, For Some Reason, Only For Consoles And Not Retro PC Games

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ dept

When it comes to policy decisions generally, and with technology platforms specifically, all we can really ask is that a policy be coherently stated and implemented in a uniform fashion. You may dislike said policy, but at a minimum it should be legible and enforced sensibly. Take, for instance, Apple’s updated policy on allowing emulation apps on its iOS platforms. While Apple traditionally disallowed such apps in its App Store, the recent change has finally allowed for the legal use of emulator apps designed to let people play “retro” or homebrew games via emulators. As a reminder, here is the actual policy language in question:

4.7 Mini apps, mini games, streaming games, chatbots, plug-ins, and game emulators

Apps may offer certain software that is not embedded in the binary, specifically HTML5 mini apps and mini games, streaming games, chatbots, and plug-ins. Additionally, retro game console emulator apps can offer to download games. You are responsible for all such software offered in your app, including ensuring that such software complies with these Guidelines and all applicable laws. Software that does not comply with one or more guidelines will lead to the rejection of your app. You must also ensure that the software adheres to the additional rules that follow in 4.7.1 and 4.7.5. These additional rules are important to preserve the experience that App Store customers expect, and to help ensure user safety.

Well, apparently one very specific word in that policy is something that Apple considers or paramount importance: “console.” We learn this via Chaoji Li, the developer of a DOSBox style emulator designed to allow iOS users to play retro PC games on their devices. With the updated Apple policy, Li submitted his app for consideration in the App Store, only to have it rejected by Apple as being against the policy. And, because this is Apple we’re talking about, the company rejected it in the most annoying way possible.

They have decided that iDOS is not a retro game console, so the new rule is not applicable. They suggested I make changes and resubmit for review, but when I asked what changes I should make to be compliant, they had no idea, nor when I asked what a retro game console is. It’s still the same old unreasonable answer along the line of “we know it when we see it.”

Now, Apple continues to point that the policy change refers to retro game “consoles”, not PC emulation applications. And, hey, that’s true! Also, from a practical application standpoint, what the actual hell is the difference? The spirit of the change in policy was to allow users to emulate games they presumably already own, only on their iOS devices rather than on their original platform. From that standpoint, what is the difference between a NES emulator and DOSBox?

Why does Apple treat the idea of a DOSBox-style emulator running an ancient copy of Microsoft Excel differently than the idea of Delta running a copy of NES Tetris on the same device? Is loading the Windows 95 Version of KidPix Studio Deluxe on your iPhone really all that different from playing an emulated copy of Mario Paint on that same iPhone?

A virtual machine or emulator running a modern PC operating system under iOS could theoretically offer some generalized competition for the apps Apple offers in its official App Store. But surely there’s a limit to how much that applies when we’re talking about emulating older computing environments and defunct operating systems. Just as Apple’s iOS game emulation rules only apply to “retro” game consoles, a rule for PC emulation could easily be limited to “retro” operating systems (say, those that are no longer officially supported by their original developers, as a rule of thumb).

It seems that either Apple’s App Store gatekeepers don’t understand the policy, or they do understand and are faithfully implementing it while being unable to actually articulate why this specific distinction is made.

Either way, it seems that retro PC game fans are being left off the party invite list for reasons nobody has thus far been able to articulate.

Filed Under: emulators, video games
Companies: apple

How To Save The News

Journalism

from the not-in-a-way-that-funds-hedge-funds dept

There is still hope that California’s perilous, protectionist legislation for news could be reformed, but not without effort. 

I just returned from Sacramento, where I was invited to testify (video below) in opposition to an Assembly bill by Buffy Wicks, which I analyzed in depth in this paper and later criticized as amended. It has passed the Assembly and the Senate Judiciary Committee. A competing bill by Sen. Steve Glazer, which I also criticized, just passed the Senate. 

So now there are two bills in play for a long, hot summer of negotiation in Sacramento — not versus each other but versus a counterproposal from Google, which I’ll describe below. The good news is that Wicks made clear in her testimony before mine that her bill — though well along in the process — is a work in progress, and she is open to change. She and Glazer appeared together in the hearing to show unity of purpose. 

I continue to have problems with both bills. The Assembly bill is a tax on “accessing” content — thus a tax on reading. The Senate bill is a tax on gathering data — thus a tax on information. They each would benefit the hedge funds that are destroying the 18 of the top 25 newspapers in the state that they control. If anyone should be held responsible for the death of newspapers and taxed for it, it should be the hedge funds. Instead, the bills blame Google and Meta for news’ decline and hold them singularly responsible for its fate. The Assembly bill requires an unwieldly process of arbitration. They are each constitutionally questionable and could spend years in courts before a penny is paid. 

A negotiated agreement would be preferable. Google has proposed an alternative involving unused tax credits and a $30 million contribution to a fund for journalism. In my testimony, I say that I favor a fund, like the Civic Information Consortium in New Jersey. Rather than distributing money indiscriminately to hedge funds and out-of-state media conglomerates as both bills would, an independently administered fund could grant money based on goals and merit, with accountability. Rather than feeding corporate bottom lines with no assurance of supporting journalism, a fund could support specific efforts such as KQED’s quality news- and ad-sharing network; it could foster the creation of support networks like the NJ News Commons at Montclair State; it could invest in news startups such as Lookout Santa Cruz, which just won a Pulitzer; it could most importantly support coverage for underserved communities.

The negotiation should not — cannot — be just with Google, for it is ridiculous to hold a single company responsible for the fate of another entire (generally mismanaged) industry. Who else might join in such a fund is a crucial question. Before I testified, I reached out to Meta, which still insists that if a bill passes it will pull news off its platforms as it did in Canada, where — despite spin from publishers’ lobbyists — the situation is now dire. Meta is also ending the deals it was forced to make under Rupert Murdoch’s legislative gunpoint in Australia, threatening to ban news there. That would be catastrophic in California, for I fear it would give Meta an excuse to take down news across the U.S. Passage of one of these bills requiring payment would also lead to the death of voluntary contributions made through the Google News Initiative, which has done much good. 

I hope that Meta can be convinced (pressured by its home-state politicians) to contribute to a fund and bring news back to Facebook and Instagram just when democracy needs it most. I’d also like to see Amazon and Microsoft contribute. 

It shouldn’t just be tech companies taking responsibility for the health of the news and information ecosystem. It’d be great if Press Forward, the journalism megafund, would partner in a California fund, along with any of the state’s many billionaires. State and local governments could contribute as well, devoting large shares of their advertising budgets to quality local news media. 

On the other side of the table, negotiations must not be monopolized by legacy newspaper companies and their lobbyists. The hedge funds’ papers are zombies. The L.A. Times has a market penetration in L.A. County under five percent, but I hear that its billionaire owner thinks he’s owed an absurd payoff from Silicon Valley. They hardly matter anymore. As I told one legislator, you need no longer be intimidated by the people who bought ink by the barrel for they now buy it by the pint. Any discussion must include Black newspapers, Latino news organizations, not-for-profit news media, independent news organizations, and digital startups, all of whom should step up to be heard. 

At the end of my testimony, I urged the legislators to foster collaboration between news and technology, rather than divorce. California of all jurisdictions — as the headquarters state of the internet — should set an example for journalism and technology working together, especially as AI looms on the horizon (and so does fascism). 

Google and other tech companies can help in other ways. I’d like to see them develop statewide and regional ad networks for news and specifically for Black media, Latino media, and so on. They could collaborate on development of appropriate uses of AI in news (not to manufacture clickbait). Google and Meta have supported training for journalists in product and audience development (full disclosure: at my former school); I’d like to see that continue and grow.

How much better it would be to encourage such collaboration instead of extracting a pound of digital flesh from tech companies to reward the lobbying of hedge funds and investors. 

Who knows what will come out the other end of the legislative sausage extruder, for there are many other cards to be played, including what I think is terrible legislation trying to regulate AI from the wrong end and privacy. 

For more details on the Assembly bill, see an excellent and fair analysis of from the counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee here.

And here is what I had to say in my three minutes in Sacramento. 

Filed Under: california, information tax, journalism, link tax

Justice Alito’s Views On Social Media And The First Amendment Seem To Shift Depending On Who He Wants To Win

Legal Issues

from the which-way-the-wind-blows dept

The Supreme Court’s opinions in the NetChoice/CCIA cases have been leading to some bizarre interpretations, as many people try to read into it things they wanted to see but just aren’t there. Cathy already covered some of the oddities of Justice Alito’s concurrence (which Justices Thomas and Gorsuch signed onto), but I wanted to dig in a little more to his concurrence, pointing out a few things that show just how much Alito is willing to decide on an ideological basis, rather than one based on principles.

First up is a point raised by Daphne Keller at Stanford. She notes that Alito cites to the Packingham ruling:

As the Court has recognized, social-media platforms have become the “modern public square.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U. S. 98, 107 (2017). In just a few years, they have transformed the way in which millions of Americans communicate with family and friends, perform daily chores, conduct business, and learn about and comment on current events.

But, as Keller points out, in the Packingham case, Alito wrote a concurrence whining incessantly about the “dicta” in the Packingham ruling (not unlike what he did in this case) and specifically whined about the whole “public square” line, claiming it was “undisciplined” and would be interpreted dangerously by future courts. Here he is in Packingham:

I cannot join the opinion of the Court, however, because of its undisciplined dicta. The Court is unable to resist musings that seem to equate the entirety of the internet with public streets and parks.

He later notes:

I am troubled by the implications of the Court’s unnecessary rhetoric.

So it’s pretty rich for him to be now leaning on that “public square” dicta that he ridiculed in that very case. He is now arguing that states should absolutely be able to force websites to host content.

But we don’t even need to go back to that 2017 decision to see Alito seemingly changing his tune. (We still believe Packingham was correctly decided, and that people misunderstand the “public square” line, though for different reasons than Alito.)

Just last week in the Murthy v. Missouri ruling, Alito’s dissent explained why social media websites have the right to moderate as they see fit. He noted that websites are like newspapers and can publish or “decline to publish whatever they wish.”

Of course, purely private entities like newspapers are not subject to the First Amendment, and as a result, they may publish or decline to publish whatever they wish.

Yet, in the NetChoice ruling, he more or less argues that the states can block that right that he just admitted last week is protected by the First Amendment. He claims that perhaps the sites could be considered common carriers (which only makes sense if you don’t understand what a common carrier is).

Most notable is the majority’s conspicuous failure to address the States’ contention that platforms like YouTube and Facebook—which constitute the 21st century equivalent of the old “public square”—should be viewed as common carriers

The majority didn’t address it because (1) it’s stupid and (2) both the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits effectively rejected that argument. (Judge Oldham’s decision does talk about it, but neither of the two other Judges on the panel signed onto it, so it doesn’t count as binding in any way.)

Alito tries to get around this distinction by arguing that websites are somehow different than newspapers:

Instead of seriously engaging with this and other arguments, the majority rests on NetChoice’s dubious assertion that there is no constitutionally significant difference between what newspaper editors did more than a half-century ago at the time of Tornillo and what Facebook and YouTube do today.

Maybe that is right—but maybe it is not. Before mechanically accepting this analogy, perhaps we should take a closer look.

He later argues that there is some sort of distinction between algorithms making editorial decisions and humans (though, it’s not clear what constitutional relevance that has):

Now consider how newspapers and social-media platforms edit content. Newspaper editors are real human beings, and when the Court decided Tornillo (the case that the majority finds most instructive), editors assigned articles to particular reporters, and copyeditors went over typescript with a blue pencil. The platforms, by contrast, play no role in selecting the billions of texts and videos that users try to convey to each other. And the vast bulk of the “curation” and “content moderation” carried out by platforms is not done by human beings. Instead, algorithms remove a small fraction of nonconforming posts post hoc and prioritize content based on factors that the platforms have not revealed and may not even know. After all, many of the biggest platforms are beginning to use AI algorithms to help them moderate content. And when AI algorithms make a decision, “even the researchers and programmers creating them don’t really understand why the models they have built make the decisions they make.”56 Are such decisions equally expressive as the decisions made by humans? Should we at least think about this?

But, if it were actually true that algorithmic decisions were not protected under the First Amendment (and, again, he’s wrong, and we have precedent to say he’s wrong), then why would he even bring up their rights to moderate in the Murthy decision a week ago?

It seems that Alito, like so many others, has a very flexible view of the First Amendment based on whether his political allies or enemies are making the argument. There is no consistency beyond “the Republicans should get what they want.”

Filed Under: 1st amendment, florida, packingham, samuel alito, social media, texas

ShotSpotter CEO Goes On The Defensive With More Meaningless Stats

Overhype

from the THERE-IS-NO-NEED-TO-EXAMINE-MY-CLAIMS dept

Things are not looking great for SoundThinking, which hasn’t been able to outrun the reputation it earned when it was still known as ShotSpotter.

More and more major cities are choosing to ditch the technology because it simply does not appear to be worth paying for. What lots of cities are finding out is that the tech cannot reliably detect gunshots, does very little to contribute to criminal investigations, and wastes limited resources by sending officers to gunshot alerts that generally result in a bunch of wasted time.

With evidence piling up the tech doesn’t have any meaningful impact on violent crime rates, the company’s PR pitch has shifted focus. It’s new talking point is that it isn’t the number of cases closed, but the number of lives saved due to its gunshot detectors.

The theory is this: a large percentage of gunshots go unreported. 911 callers may call about gunshots they think they’ve heard but plenty of guns are being fired without being heard or without being reported by other residents. According to its new sales pitch, ShotSpotter helps provide faster EMS response, which means fewer people are dying from being shot.

The company claims this is true even though there’s not a single city or law enforcement agency in the nation that actively tracks this data. The latest damning report on the tech — issued by the New York City comptroller — specifically attacked this line of thinking, which was used by the NYPD itself to defend tech it couldn’t actually justify with the minimal data it has (almost inadvertently) collected on ShotSpotter alerts.

Apparently, facts don’t matter when the bottom line is on the line. ShotSpotter’s current CEO, Ralph Clark, recently had a letter to the editor in defense of his company posted by The Mercury News. The reason for Clark’s indirect intervention is this: Oakland is working on a new budget and a lot of opposition has been raised against extending the city’s ShotSpotter contract.

And here’s what the CEO has offered in defense of his company’s tech:

From 2022 to 2023, more than 380 lives were saved because of this technology — gunshot victims found from the alert despite no 911 call.

Some have asked the City to cut the service, which would be dangerous. Less than 20% of gunfire is reported by 911. This is where ShotSpotter steps in. We don’t want to return to the days when our police don’t know when — and exactly where — gunfire is occurring.

He could have put anything in there. Any number at all. Any time period at all. It wouldn’t have mattered. Ralph Clark is just tossing out numbers like they mean something, even when they’re completely devoid of context.

While I realize most sites won’t publish excessively long letters to the editor and that the company’s CEO is certainly aware a wall of text rarely changes anyone’s mind, there’s absolutely zero information here that clarifies what’s being claimed in the that first sentence.

Is this just in Oakland? Is this across the nation? If it’s just Oakland, where is ShotSpotter getting this data? I can guarantee Oakland law enforcement isn’t tracking this metric.

Are EMS units arriving on the scene faster? Or does this just mean that, at some point, an EMS unit arrived where a shot was reported by ShotSpotter? Is ShotSpotter tracking outcomes of ER visits to ensure lives were saved? Is the Oakland PD doing this? Where is this number coming from and, just as importantly, how significant is it in terms of total number of shots detected by ShotSpotter mics?

What we do know for certain is that cops using this tech aren’t tracking this sort of information. In fact, in most cases, they aren’t doing any tracking at all so they don’t really know whether or not the tech is actually having any impact on anything. It’s usually city oversight entities doing this dirty work. And when they do it, they always find the tech is consuming lots of time and resources without providing any verifiable return on investment, especially not in terms of crime reduction.

If this is the best ShotSpotter has to offer, it doesn’t deserve reconsideration. If Ralph Clark would like to publish the underlying stats (along with their source) for this claim, I’ll be more than happy to publish them here as well. But, until the company actually has something substantial and verifiable to say about its service, the most it should try to credibly claim is that it’s capable of detecting gunshots. And if that’s all it is, it certainly isn’t worth spending money on until it can demonstrate utility beyond that.

Filed Under: gunshot detection, oakland, police, surveillance
Companies: shotspotter, soundthinking

Daily Deal: The Complete Master GIMP Design Bundle

Deals

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Go from absolute zero to GIMP pro with this comprehensive 9 course bundle. Jump into the Complete Master GIMP Design Bundle, and you’ll go all the way from installing the GIMP software and configuring it to run on Windows, to producing banners, book covers and even memes that you’ll display using Facebook and other social media, WordPress and HTML. What’s more, you’ll even explore touching up photos and complete each section with a small project to demonstrate your understanding. It’s on sale for $30.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

Florida’s Attorney General Declares Victory In Social Media Case, Even Though The Supreme Court Makes It Clear She Lost Big Time

Content Moderation

from the that's-not-how-any-of-this-works dept

BREAKING NEWS: Florida’s Attorney General says the Supreme Court unanimously sided with her in a case where they unanimously ruled against her arguments.

Perhaps there’s a reason that Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody is so vigorously defending a Florida law that would block social media companies from diminishing the reach of disinformation: she loves spreading it herself.

Here’s Moody declaring victory based on a Supreme Court ruling she very clearly lost:

“BREAKING NEWS,” she says, “SCOTUS Unanimously Sides with Florida in Social Media Case.” Followed by: “We are pleased that SCOTUS agreed with Florida and rejected the lower court’s flawed reasoning—invalidating our social media law. While there are aspects of the decision we disagree with, we look forward to continuing to defend state law.”

Except that’s not even close to an accurate summary of what happened. As we’ve already described, the majority ruling is a pretty clear rebuke to the laws in both Texas and Florida. While it spends a lot more time focusing on the Fifth Circuit’s monstrosity, its only real fault with the Eleventh Circuit (which rejected Florida’s law) was that they didn’t jump through all the procedural hurdles for a facial challenge.

The clear point of the ruling is not that Florida’s law is fine, it’s just that the lower courts should have taken a few more procedural steps to explain why the laws were not fine. Even in Justice Barrett’s concurrence, she notes that the Eleventh Circuit got the First Amendment analysis correct:

I join the Court’s opinion, which correctly articulates and applies our First Amendment precedent. In this respect, the Eleventh Circuit’s understanding of the First Amendment’s protection of editorial discretion was generally correct; the Fifth Circuit’s was not.

So, at this point, six out of the nine Justices (including three from the “conservative” wing) agree with basic First Amendment analysis by the Eleventh Circuit (which was written by a “conservative” Federalist Society-recommended judge).

The idea that this was a victory for Florida in any sense defies not just basic logic, but basic reading comprehension.

My inbox is filled with press releases from all sides claiming victory in this case. But most of them are wrong. The victory here was for fundamental First Amendment principles applying to the internet, meaning that states cannot pass laws that prevent editorial discretion. As the majority noted:

To the extent that socialmedia platforms create expressive products, they receive the First Amendment’s protection. And although these cases are here in a preliminary posture, the current record suggests that some platforms, in at least some functions, are indeed engaged in expression. In constructing certain feeds, those platforms make choices about what third-party speech to display and how to display it. They include and exclude, organize and prioritize—and in making millions of those decisions each day, produce their own distinctive compilations of expression. And while much about social media is new, the essence of that project is something this Court has seen before. Traditional publishers and editors also select and shape other parties’ expression into their own curated speech products. And we have repeatedly held that laws curtailing their editorial choices must meet the First Amendment’s requirements. The principle does not change because the curated compilation has gone from the physical to the virtual world. In the latter, as in the former, government efforts to alter an edited compilation of third-party expression are subject to judicial review for compliance with the First Amendment.

And that means what it says: any law that seeks to curtail the editorial discretion of private websites must be reviewed under the First Amendment. That means Florida’s law isn’t going to survive. Many other state laws won’t survive either.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ashley moody, content moderation, florida, supreme court
Companies: ccia, netchoice