And with email, the recipient can choose to override the spam filter. That's key, and is the reason that spam filters aren't censorship.
Then they came for the crypto crap, and I did not speak out because I didn’t want that crap.
Then they came for the NFTs, and I did not speak out because I was not an NFT bro.
Then they came for the weekly trash pickup, and I said thank you.
There are plenty of people in the world who will do anything in this world for money, power, wealth, and control over people and they don't care who they hurt in the process of achieving that goal.
The thing about the "first they came" poem is that attacking the socialists, trade unionists and jews is already bad. There's a reason it doesn't start with "first they came for the murderers, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't a murderer".
The poem urges us to stand up against injustice even if it doesn't affect us directly. The poem doesn't argue that all slopes are slippery.
Going after bad things can be good, but going after a developer who wants to be tipped in crypto isn't a bad thing. Apple being able to take down an app because it allows the user to monetarily reward a developer in the way the dev chooses *is* a bad thing.
I honestly don't believe anyone can argue this in good faith. First off it's not user->developer but user->user and second "the way the dev [or user] chooses" is just silly. At the end of the day people want fiat currencies, Bitcoin (or any other crypto) in this case is clearly meant as a way to bypass the app store cut. It's not because "they really wanted bitcoin", no, they wanted a loophole. We can argue about if Apple/Google deserve 30% but pretending people actually want crypto for any reason other than avoid rules/regulations is silly.
And apparently, this isn't even about cryptocurrency but Apple's normal 30% tax. If that's true, then it means that the lazy slippery slope argument is even less applicable.
It has nothing to do with free speech or anything, it’s a wart
