mike bski

mike bski

mike bski

@BskiMike22802

4 Oct 2025

Replying to @RBReich

Dear Robert, Oh good, another hot take from the former Labor Secretary who apparently believes private companies should be FORCED to host applications that enable anonymous reporting on federal law enforcement officers performing their lawful duties. How perfectly constitutional of you! Let me walk you through some BASIC legal principles you might have glossed over during your academic career. Apple operates a private platform and has ZERO constitutional obligation to host any particular application. The First Amendment prohibits GOVERNMENT censorship, not private editorial decisions by companies operating their own property. Remember when you taught economics? Property rights? Voluntary association? Any of this ringing a bell? But here's where your argument gets truly fascinating. You're clutching your pearls about "Big Tech bending the knee to our tyrant-in-chief" while simultaneously demanding that Big Tech be FORCED to host content they don't want to carry. So which is it, Robert? Should private companies have editorial discretion or not? Or does it only count as "tyranny" when they make decisions you personally disagree with? The ICE tracking app you're defending wasn't removed because of some nefarious pressure campaign. Apple removed it because it violated their App Store guidelines against apps designed to target and harass individuals based on their employment. Would you be defending an app that tracked IRS agents? FBI agents? How about an app that tracked former Labor Secretaries who write economically illiterate op-eds? Your characterization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as agents of tyranny is particularly rich coming from someone who served in an administration that deported MILLIONS of people. Under President Obama, ICE conducted approximately 2.9 MILLION removals between 2009 and 2016. Were those deportations also tyrannical, or does tyranny only exist when Republicans enforce the exact same laws you helped enforce?(1) Let's talk about what this app ACTUALLY did. It allowed users to report ICE officer locations in real time, creating a crowdsourced tracking system that put federal law enforcement officers and their families at risk. This isn't "accountability" - it's TARGETED HARASSMENT designed to intimidate officers performing their lawful duties under duly enacted federal immigration law. Here's what you conveniently omitted from your indignant tweet: The Department of Justice cited legitimate law enforcement and safety concerns about an application specifically designed to interfere with federal immigration enforcement operations. Apps that enable real-time tracking and targeting of federal officers create OBVIOUS security risks.(2) But I'm sure you've thought through the precedent you're setting here, right Robert? If private companies can be compelled to host applications targeting federal immigration officers, can they also be forced to host apps tracking abortion providers? Apps tracking Democratic politicians? Apps tracking progressive activists? Or does your newfound love of compelled speech only flow in one direction? Your "bottom line" argument is particularly telling. You frame Apple's decision as kowtowing to protect their financial interests, but you're literally arguing they should be FORCED to host content they don't want. That's not defending free speech - that's COMPELLING speech, which is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from doing. The real irony here is that you're demanding Big Tech exercise less editorial control while simultaneously complaining about Big Tech having too much power. Pick a lane, Robert! Either private companies get to make editorial decisions about their platforms, or they don't. You can't have it both ways just because you happen to agree with some decisions and disagree with others. Let me guess - when Twitter (now X) was removing accounts you disagreed with, that was "responsible content moderation." But when Apple removes an app designed to track and harass federal law enforcement officers, suddenly it's corporate tyranny? The intellectual consistency is stunning! Perhaps between your "resistance" speaking tours and MSNBC appearances, you could review some BASIC constitutional law. The government cannot compel private companies to host speech they don't want to carry. That's settled law. Your problem isn't with Apple - it's with the CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS on government power that prevent you from forcing private entities to advance your political agenda. And let's address your "tyrant-in-chief" rhetoric for a moment. President Trump was ELECTED by the American people through our constitutional process. He's enforcing immigration laws passed by CONGRESS through the constitutional legislative process. ICE officers are performing their lawful duties under statutory authority granted by the people's elected representatives. That's called REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, not tyranny. You know what's actually tyrannical, Robert? A former government official demanding that private companies be forced to host applications designed to harass federal law enforcement officers performing their constitutional duties. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that you should be able to use government power to compel private speech you agree with while simultaneously complaining about "tyranny" when the government enforces laws you don't like. The "organized political violence" memo you're indirectly referencing doesn't demand app removals - it identifies PATTERNS of targeted harassment and violence against federal officers and asks technology companies to consider the safety implications of apps specifically designed to facilitate such targeting. That's not censorship - that's RESPONSIBLE GOVERNANCE concerned with officer safety. But what do I know? I'm just someone who understands that the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to force Apple to host their preferred applications, and that law enforcement officers deserve protection from targeted harassment while performing their lawful duties. Perhaps between your Twitter activism and your crusade against "billionaires" (while you pocket lucrative speaking fees), you could learn the difference between government censorship and private editorial discretion. No rush though! The CONSTITUTIONAL DISTINCTION between government action and private choice probably isn't important to someone whose entire political identity is built on demanding government force private entities to advance progressive causes. #ConstitutionalLaw #PrivateProperty #FirstAmendment #PropertyRights #LawfulEnforcement #ImmigrationLaw #EditorialDiscretion #RuleOfLaw #CompelledSpeech #HypocrisyExposed #RememberCivics #AppStoreRules (1) U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal statistics (2009-2016) (2) Department of Justice memo on officer safety concerns related to tracking applications (2025)

Spotify ignites new war of words with Apple over DMA changes