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 this crazy tendency to LARP as counsel for the defence whenever a big tech company gets bad press.
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.
> particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate, or harm a targeted individual or group
That part seems to cover the use case for the apps.
>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.