[HN Gopher] Google, Apple cave to Pakistan pressure to take down...
___________________________________________________________________
Google, Apple cave to Pakistan pressure to take down apps by
Ahmadiyya Muslims
Author : shalmanese
Score : 351 points
Date : 2021-02-05 12:11 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.buzzfeednews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.buzzfeednews.com)
| sbmthakur wrote:
| That's unfortunate considering Ahmadiyyas were at the forefront
| of the Pakistan movement.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis
| valarauko wrote:
| The community also produced Pakistan's first Nobel Laureate,
| and the first Muslim to receive a Nobel for science. Upon his
| death, the Pakistani government defaced his gravestone to
| remove the word "muslim".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| While I agree that banning religious apps is particularly
| objectionable, it's interesting to compare the response to
| Pakistan banning US apps and India banning Chinese apps.
| Layke1123 wrote:
| What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"?
| Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| While I won't draw my exact lines, an annotated version of
| the Qur'an for your sect pretty clearly should be allowed.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I keep thinking about infamous Telegram 'war' with russian
| cenrosship agency, RosKomNadzor. Telegram was blocked via russian
| ISPs, but was never removed from Russian sections of Google Play
| and Apple Appstore.
|
| We now see that Apple and Google, time after time, easily submit
| to the will of local governments and remove questionable apps.
| Yet, Telegram was NOT removed. Russian media agencies claim that
| RosKomNadzor _asked_ Google &Apple to suspend the app, but the
| source for all media publications was always the same press-
| release by RKN. So it keeps me thinking: what if the world was
| played and all this 'blocking' scandal was just a publicity stunt
| to raise Telegram's profile as a service that does not give up
| data to authorities?
|
| Does anyone know if we can confirm via Google & Apple that they
| _were_ asked to remove Telegram from play stores (and refused),
| or... they weren 't really asked at all?
| stanislavb wrote:
| This is an interesting point of view...
| 1024core wrote:
| This only applies to Pakistan. It isn't Google's or Apple's place
| to fix Pakistan's problems. A company has to obey the laws of the
| country they are operating in.
|
| Those who oppose this should consider the alternative. Suppose
| there's an app that is openly racist and discriminates against
| POCs, which is against the law in the US. Since it is violating
| the law, shouldn't it be taken down?
| koshnaranek wrote:
| So if Google would have had to use their phones to help find
| the SS find hidden Jewa, perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, they
| can and should do so since it is after all not their
| responsibility to fix Nazi Germany?
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Absolutely. Free speech means your default position is that you
| can say whatever you want, and then the court can determine if
| it violates the spirit of the law.
|
| The flip side to this is that you can absolutely be given a
| sentence in other countries without free speech and have to
| litigate or violently overthrow the regime that denies you due
| process.
|
| But in neither society should something like racism be
| tolerated. There is no good that can come from saying white
| people are better than black people simple because they are
| black. It is not a useful metric at all when evaluating people.
| MLK really said it best. Do not judge based on the color of his
| children's skin but the content of their character.
| loveistheanswer wrote:
| Let's go one step further:
|
| Suppose there's an app which is openly racist and discriminates
| against POCs, and that is in accordance with the law in the US
| (as it was not too long ago).
|
| Should Google allow that app, since it's in accordance with the
| law and it makes them money, or should they consider if the law
| is unethical according to their own moral compass?
|
| Perhaps this hypothetical question is erroneous, as it assumes
| a trillion dollar corporation would be more concerned with
| ethics and morals than providing infinite growth for their
| shareholders.
| rediguanayum wrote:
| The app appears to be available in the US on the App Play store.
| rmrfrmrf wrote:
| Pakistan's laws are clearly wrong, but Apple and Google do not
| and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws.
| ozborn wrote:
| A country's law can be bypassed by not doing business there, an
| option that Google is already familiar from its 2010 decision
| regarding China. Pakistan is a large country, but I don't think
| it is a big market for Google - certainly much smaller than
| China.
|
| Also, I found it disingenuous that Google plays "it's the law
| card" when it spends millions of dollars a year lobbying in the
| United States to get laws changed. Now, it may be much harder
| to get the Pakistan government to change its mind around the
| inclusion of "Muslim" for online content for this group - but I
| doubt Google has bothered to try...
|
| There is more than a country's law to consider, there is
| international law and war crimes tribunals. Nothing maybe for
| Google to worry about yet, but what if Pakistan passes a law is
| passed that requires Google to give up all search data on this
| minority population in order that the government can monitor,
| imprison or kill them? I'd like to see how Google's legal team
| would respond to that. I'm guessing comply and cover-up, but
| I'd like to be wrong.
|
| Note it doesn't even have to be an international law, it can be
| a better, future Pakistan, perhaps one with an Ahmadiyya leader
| - as inconceivable as that seems now. Germany for example, is
| charging an old lady with aiding and abetting murder (10,000
| times!) for her secretarial work as a minor in a concentration
| camp. Pakistan is bigger than Germany and Google is good at
| doing things at scale... so let's hope Google leadership leads.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| That's literally the opposite of what bypassing means
| II2II wrote:
| Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their
| course of action be?
|
| The course of action they followed implicitly supports human
| rights violations, in order to continue operating within a
| given country. Note that I am not saying the action itself is a
| human rights violation. They certainly have the right to choose
| what to publish and they are limiting the scope of their
| actions to the laws of the country question. The decision is
| entirely reasonable if the context of those laws is ignored.
| The decision is also entirely reasonable when you consider that
| Apple and Google are large enough entities that not operating
| within that country or doing so in violation of their laws
| could rightfully be considered as exerting political pressure.
|
| I doubt that there is actually a good answer to the question.
| There is only a lesser-of-evils answer, where they probably
| made the right choice even though I find their profiting from
| that choice disgusting.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should
| their course of action be?
|
| To comply with the law.
|
| No, I don't like it either, but I also don't like the idea of
| corporations having the ability to flout the laws of
| sovereign nations because they disagree with them.
|
| > The course of action they followed implicitly supports
| human rights violations
|
| This is not a "course of action" anymore than not committing
| a crime is a public service. Enforcing human rights laws is
| _not Apple or Google 's job,_ full stop. They are
| corporations who's goal is to make money, and that's it.
| Enforcing human rights is what _Governments_ are for.
|
| Instead of asking "why aren't Apple and Google helping
| activists in Pakistan?" ask "why is Pakistan allowed to abuse
| it's citizenry in 2021?"
| II2II wrote:
| The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to profit
| from the decision. The only way I can see the situation
| being avoided is by not entering the particular market in
| the first place, or by not allowing corporations to get so
| large that their actions can be construed as political
| interference (whether it is intentional or not). Either
| way, the current decision is the consequence of earlier
| ones.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to
| profit from the decision
|
| I mean, they're going to do that anyway. They will enter
| all markets they are able to, and profit as much as they
| can. That's the entire point of their existence: generate
| value for shareholders.
|
| I'm not saying I disagree that this situation should be
| avoided, and in fact super agree with you saying that
| this moment in history is a consequence of earlier ones
| more than anything else. However, there's a reflexive
| action where people are like "$corporation needs to make
| more ethical decisions" and I cannot overemphasize how
| ridiculous this view is. Corporations are not even
| unethical, they're _aethical._ Their decision making is
| entirely focused on maximum profit generation.
|
| Now _occasionally_ they 'll do something ethical, but
| oftentimes this is solely because the negative PR from
| doing something else, or doing nothing, would cause too
| much damage to the bottom line, however relying solely on
| this mechanism to illicit change in said corporations is
| optimistic _at best._ Instead, legislate what must
| happen. If you don 't want corporations to use child
| labor to mine minerals, then _make that practice
| incredibly illegal,_ and make sure the costs to do it
| anyway are sky high compared to the ones to not. And do
| it with law, not protest.
| djrogers wrote:
| > They certainly have the right to choose what to publish
|
| No, they really don't. If they 'chose' to publish an app that
| is banned by Pakistan, the ultimate end-move would be for
| Pakistan to simply disable the app stores completely.
| notyourday wrote:
| Nah. The Pakistan's ruling class would not want their
| phones not to function because it may rule over a country
| with goat herders that pray multiple times a day, but it
| lives like the top 1% of the West.
|
| If Google or Apple wanted to squeeze Pakistan or any other
| country such that they would simply stop providing any
| services there or to any phone that has been located in
| Pakistan at any point. Within weeks, the app stores would
| be restored.
| matthewaveryusa wrote:
| Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical
| solutions -- It goes both ways though
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution
| -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-)
| public company in the position of power.
| swiley wrote:
| No. but the citizens should be able to bypass unjust laws and
| Apple and Google have no business preventing _that._
| vharuck wrote:
| I would argue that Google, Apple, and any other group or
| individual should have the choice to ignore laws. When immoral
| laws are flaunted to promote the common good, it's called civil
| disobedience. Likewise, governments are free to investigate and
| punish those people. Also likewise, the population is free to
| form their own opinions about the "criminals" and government.
|
| That's society. We shouldn't throw our hands in the air and
| blindly follow all laws just because there's no objective
| truth.
| kop316 wrote:
| So may I ask your opinion of this?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
| tdaltonc wrote:
| In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.
| edrxty wrote:
| Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as
| managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot
| participate based on random whims.
|
| If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or
| Pakistan, then it would be a different story.
| triceratops wrote:
| Apple disputed an order in court and won lawfully? Seems
| consistent.
| 542458 wrote:
| I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for
| Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are
| all that similar.
|
| In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not
| have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone's
| encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally
| disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust
| orders is allowed under US law.
|
| Versus this case where the Pakistani government does,
| unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this
| law as harshly as it wants.
| username90 wrote:
| Easy solution is to not have monolithic gatekeepers like Apple
| or Google that can be pressured into doing stuff like this. A
| website is way harder to shut down than an appstore app, so
| normalizing appstores is a huge problem.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| Just another reason why you don't want companies like Apple and
| Google to be the gatekeepers. Technology can set you free, but
| only if you let it. If you don't, it can easily become a new tool
| of oppression.
| jmull wrote:
| _Sigh_
|
| The problem here lies with Pakistan, not Apple and Google.
|
| An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject
| to the same unjust laws as them. The most Apple and Google can
| do is leave the market. There's an argument for that, but that
| doesn't make those apps available in Pakistan, and, more
| importantly, doesn't end the oppression of Ahmadiyya Muslims in
| Pakistan.
|
| There are arguments against gatekeeping tech companies, but
| this isn't one of them.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The problem lies with Pakistan _and_ Apple and Google. If the
| apps in question could be installed without an App Store
| blocking them would be much harder. The entity creating the
| apps does not seem to have a commercial presence in Pakistan
| and the Pakistani government would have no jurisdiction over
| their actions. Having large commercial intermediaries with
| money on the line is really convenient when you want to get
| something censored.
|
| From the article:
|
| > The PTA also ordered shut a US-based Ahmadi site,
| TrueIslam.com, threatening its administrators with criminal
| charges that carry a $3 million fine. The decision may not be
| enforceable, since the people who run the site, including
| Zafar, do not live in Pakistan.
| jmull wrote:
| You're suggesting that if Apple and Google create an app-
| loading mechanism that makes it difficult for them to block
| an app, that Pakistan will simply let them off the hook.
|
| I don't think so. Why wouldn't Pakistan simply require them
| to block it anyway?
|
| > ...since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do
| not live in Pakistan
|
| Not relevant. In this case, Apple and Google do business in
| Pakistan. You can argue they need to leave the market. If
| so, let's hear it. (Personally, I don't think that would
| have an impact or be the right way to go even if it did.)
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| I'm suggesting that Apple and Google should not be in
| position to decide what users run on their apps. On
| Android, it is rather close to it (sans push
| notifications, which are not available without Google
| Play services, and without which background apps running
| is somewhat problematic), but Apple is a completely
| opposite.
| jmull wrote:
| Not sure you're understanding what I'm saying.
|
| The Pakistani government can _require_ that Apple and
| Google block certain apps and _require_ that they
| maintain their ability to do so.
|
| I don't dispute that Apple and Google do gatekeeping.
| They do. We can discuss the pros and cons of it. But that
| is simply not issue here.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > The Pakistani government can require that Apple and
| Google block certain apps and require that they maintain
| their ability to do so.
|
| In general, we do not see governments doing this, no.
|
| For example, I am sure that some people in Pakistan own
| intel/windows computers.
|
| But Pakistan is not making laws that require every single
| intel/windows computer to block certain content, at the
| hardware level of the PC.
|
| That is something that seems pretty difficult to enforce
| on all PCs.
|
| If phones worked more like PCs, then it is likely that
| they would enjoy similar benefits.
| wobbly_bush wrote:
| > If the apps in question could be installed without an App
| Store..
|
| Android already allows side loading apps which don't have
| to come from an app store.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| If there is no gatekeeper, there is no one for Pakistan to
| pressure. _That_ is the problem with gatekeepers, it 's a
| single point of failure.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be
| subject to the same unjust laws as them.
|
| Would they, though? How can you stop arbitrary APK downloads
| from the internet? Or a site that constantly changes its
| domain? Look at how blocking places like The Pirate Bay goes.
|
| I think there is more to be said for the impact of Apple and
| Google leaving the Pakistani market than you grant.
|
| Google is willing to leave the Australian market because they
| don't want to share revenues with the newspapers they skim
| for headlines, but they will suppress religious minorities to
| comply with theocratic governments.
|
| These Western companies do not hold any values.
| koshnaranek wrote:
| It would hurt a bit though if Pakistan did not have Google's
| and apple's services though. So oppressing people would come
| at a price.
| adventured wrote:
| The gatekeeper is Pakistan, it's their sovereign territory. The
| Internet isn't outside of that reach, it only exists inside of
| a territory with the permission of the government that controls
| it.
|
| You might as well be talking about any of a zillion laws within
| 195 different countries that one might find objectionable, it's
| exactly the same 'problem.'
|
| What's the premise? Pakistan doesn't get to decide their own
| laws? That's identical to saying that Pakistan shouldn't get to
| decide how networks operate in their territory.
|
| And if we're going there, no nations in Europe should be
| allowed to determine their own speech laws or restrictions
| because I largely disagree with them, and they also shouldn't
| be allowed to control or restrict any networks that operate
| within their borders under any circumstances, and that includes
| barring them from limiting any content for any reason. Fun
| game.
| andrejserafim wrote:
| Totally right. Remember that capital doesn't have a nation.
| Companies registered in the US have to comply with US laws.
|
| But a legal entity in Pakistan have to obide by those rules.
| And if it's profitable - they will.
|
| Replace Pakistan with any other country name, the argument
| doesn't change. It's the law in that jurisdiction.
|
| You can't really mix and match the legislation you like and
| don't like.
|
| No idea if the particular law is just, but that's not the
| question. The question is - is it profitable to abide by it?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| So much for: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and
| routes around it."
|
| [1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
| EEMac wrote:
| Ask Parler how well that works in the new era of FAANG
| dominance.
| babesh wrote:
| Funny how Apple and Google are still fine with doing
| business in Pakistan.
| avianlyric wrote:
| What exactly is your point?
| babesh wrote:
| They are hypocrites. They loudly proclaim how moral they
| are but when it is inconvenient/unprofitable their
| morality disappears.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| it's more that their morality includes compliance with
| the laws of the states they operate in. It always has,
| and they will buck those laws on extremely rare
| occasions, usually when they believe they are seeing a
| mis-implementation of the laws, and (when outside the US)
| usually by ceasing to do business in the territory (see:
| Google's pullback from China).
|
| None of what we're seeing in Pakistan right now is new
| for tech company SOP. Google Maps shows different borders
| depending on the location of the originating query.
| Twitter masks certain tweets for users in Germany because
| some speech that's legal in the US is illegal in Germany
| and the penalties are harsh for propagating it.
|
| It's a big world, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on
| law or ethics in the international community.
| babesh wrote:
| That is a load of bullshit. Google tried to get back into
| China (see Project Dragonfly). Did China change the
| offending laws in the meantime? How are those Tianamen
| Square searches doing in China on those Apple phones?
|
| What kind of person or entity hides under the pretense
| that it's the law and you have to always follow it?
| Nuremberg trials defense? Separate but equal? South
| Africa anyone?
|
| All I have to do is to do is change the law and then
| suddenly it's moral. Slavery moral one day, not moral the
| next. Moral on this side of the line but not moral on the
| other. One day the emperor says that red hats are against
| the law, the next day you can only wear red hats. Wait,
| 1984!
|
| A morality grounded on adherence to the law is no
| morality at all. It only lets the levers of law be pulled
| by those with other ideas on morality or the lack
| thereof.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's important not to run so fast from 1984 that one runs
| into Snow Crash.
|
| If corporations are setting morality apart from the law,
| they become another authority. Then we have a different
| set of problems; at least in some countries, the
| government authority is elected. CEOs aren't elected by
| the people, and the emperor has nothing on the whims of
| Jeff Bezos or Jack Dorsey.
| babesh wrote:
| Both are problematic and both are occurring right now.
| pknerd wrote:
| Then they will have to leave entire subcontinent and
| middle east.
| babesh wrote:
| Yes.
| zepto wrote:
| They might think that it's better for people to have
| access to their technology than not to, even if certain
| apps are unavailable.
|
| Would it be ethical for them to abandon all of their
| customers in Pakistan over this?
| babesh wrote:
| This is the same exact argument made roughly 30 years ago
| with South Africa and apartheid.
| zepto wrote:
| Not in the least. South Africa ultimately was pressured
| by wide ranging sanctions from nation states. That would
| be a good way to proceed in this case too.
| babesh wrote:
| I was referring to the companies that were against the
| sanctions.
| zepto wrote:
| Apple is not against sanctions, so there is no
| comparison.
|
| If the US government includes technology restrictions as
| sanctions against Pakistan, I expect Apple would comply.
| babesh wrote:
| The point is that companies argued to continue doing
| business with South Africa because it would be a net
| benefit to those countries. It's the same argument.
| babesh wrote:
| Yes it would be ethical to abandon their customers over
| this. Apparently religious freedom isn't where you draw
| the line. What other rights are you willing to abandon?
| zepto wrote:
| Their customers live in a country without religious
| freedom.
|
| Do you think Apple has the power to change that?
|
| If they don't do business there their customers are
| objectively worse off.
|
| Not only do they not have religious freedom, but they
| also don't have access to technology.
|
| That seems wrong to me.
|
| I wonder what people in Pakistan would say?
|
| Would most of them really want these companies to leave?
| babesh wrote:
| I am saying that the companies are hypocrites. They don't
| have to leave. Just expose their hypocrisy and lies.
| babesh wrote:
| Also, let's take it even further. How about the right to
| vote? Would it ok to do business in a country where women
| don't have the right to vote? How about apartheid? How
| about slavery? How about genocide? Where is your line and
| on what basis would you make it? Do you even have a line?
| babesh wrote:
| Also those mostly aren't their customers in Google's
| case. Their customers are mostly the advertisers.
| zepto wrote:
| Ok then, let's say users.
| Bud wrote:
| Please cite sources showing Apple "loudly proclaiming how
| moral" it is.
| babesh wrote:
| https://youtu.be/x3nFe7EpWAY
| judge2020 wrote:
| Your mistake was believing CEOs. The only thing you can
| count on is the invisible hand of capitalism, and today
| it requires both:
|
| - operating in (wealthy) oppressive regimes
|
| - denouncing those same oppressive regimes
| babesh wrote:
| https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-says-privacy-is-an-
| issue-...
|
| Tim Cook says privacy is an issue of morality
| babesh wrote:
| Cook, though, presented the issue in deeply political
| terms. He said: "We believe that people have a
| fundamental right to privacy. The American people demand
| it, the constitution demands it, morality demands it."
| babesh wrote:
| Tim Cook: As reported by TechCrunch, he said: "I'm
| speaking to you from Silicon Valley, where some of the
| most prominent and successful companies have built their
| businesses by lulling their customers into complacency
| about their personal information. They're gobbling up
| everything they can learn about you and trying to
| monetize it. We think that's wrong. And it's not the kind
| of company that Apple wants to be."
| babesh wrote:
| Apparently for Apple, privacy is moral in the US but not
| in China. Hahahahahahaha!
|
| Also not really privacy since your device is backed up to
| Apple's servers where they can conveniently hand them
| over to the US government. That's right. If you are a
| citizen of say Germany, does the US government have
| access to your data?
| onethought wrote:
| What do they do in China that is different to the US?
| babesh wrote:
| They segregate Chinese data in China and have easy access
| to it. I wonder if they leave the rest of the world data
| in the US.
| babesh wrote:
| Please read more carefully.
|
| Tim Cook " At Apple, our mission has been and always will
| be to create technology that empowers people to change
| the world for the better."
| YawningAngel wrote:
| Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of
| a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be
| able to deplatform Donald Trump and not have Pakistan chase
| my friends in the Ahmadiyya community off the internet than
| accept both of those outcomes
| adventured wrote:
| I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's
| territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide
| how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether
| anyone likes it or not.
|
| There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really,
| really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that?
| Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that
| problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of
| a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside
| of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws /
| religion / et al.
|
| Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion?
| What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem
| there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant
| down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their
| own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their
| government?
|
| I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of
| this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but
| Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool,
| now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about
| the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's
| actually the central matter here. They are de facto the
| gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign
| territory, period. See: China and how they operate the
| Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse
| whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not.
|
| An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals
| should never trade with bad nations, because they have to
| comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can
| facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's
| identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan
| tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's
| sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go
| on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides
| that? More fun.
| YawningAngel wrote:
| If internet services in general were less centralised,
| Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its
| ability to wield that power against its citizens might be
| reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the
| App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid
|
| Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the
| warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but
| that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction
| associated with doing so
| centimeter wrote:
| Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically
| influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in
| a way where it's not possible for Pakistan to wholesale
| prevent people from using a piece of software.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| At which point said phone is no longer available for
| purchase in Pakistan.
|
| This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions
| of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws
| and culture of the places where it operates, especially
| with regard to the global south. Just because you either
| don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough
| to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to
| you.
|
| I of course disagree with what's happening here, but
| nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > At which point said phone is no longer available for
| purchase in Pakistan.
|
| This isn't really supported by how other similar devices
| are treated.
|
| We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level censorship
| functionality inserted into it, as the behest of
| governments.
|
| The idea that a country would stop all phones from being
| purchased, if phones simply worked similarly to PCs,
| sounds about as unlikely as a country blocking the
| purchase of "unlocked" PCs, which we see is not currently
| happening.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level
| censorship functionality inserted into it, as the behest
| of governments.
|
| I mean, that literally did almost happen once, right here
| in the US of A. And sure, points to you, no country has
| yet attempted it since then, but also, China has locked
| onto a much more productive and efficient model;
| controlling the flow of information itself, rather than
| the client devices at hand.
|
| And yeah, that's circumvent-able by users of sufficient
| tech literacy and bravery, but also, that fact has not
| presented an issue yet for China's Communist Party in
| their efforts to keep a stranglehold on the culture of
| their country, apart from perhaps Hong Kong.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > controlling the flow of information itself, rather than
| the client devices at hand.
|
| > controlling the flow of information itself, rather than
| the client devices at hand.
|
| It is still significantly harder to enact censorship on a
| wide scale as china is trying to do, than it is to simply
| change 2 app stores.
|
| The stuff that china is doing, is much more difficult. It
| uses a lot of resources, and is not perfect.
|
| I would rather more barriers be put up, so as to make
| censorship more difficult, wherever possible.
|
| And making phones more open is another such barrier, that
| makes censorship more difficult.
|
| Rights are not binary. Oppression and censorship is a
| spectrum, and taking actions against such oppression
| makes the oppression less effective, even if some
| oppression still happens.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Not available for purchase != not available.
|
| I understand the point you're trying to make:
| technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's
| from a non-Western / less-democratic country.
|
| But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there
| are technical qualities about the internet that make it
| censorship-resistant.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a
| less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's
| applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend
| or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media
| hasn't or can't, and there is _some_ truth to that? But
| that wasn 't because of some innate superiority; it was
| because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom
| to express oneself is the default, with authorities only
| really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed
| through the Internet's spread to other parts of the
| world, where this is not always the case, and the
| reaction in general from companies especially borders on
| pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect
| unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana
| republic?"
|
| Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic,
| regardless of how banana it might be, _it is the
| Government and it has power._ I feel like this is the
| penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to
| find out that the madman running around in tanks and
| aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know,
| over there, actually does have direct and indisputable
| power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is
| probably killing tons of them. Like, we _know_ that, but
| we don 't _understand_ what that means, not really. How
| could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further
| from my reality.
|
| And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the
| Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in
| terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments
| can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes
| too much of a problem.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| I think we're talking about two different things here:
| companies and code.
|
| You're absolutely right in that companies, as legal
| entities, have to obey laws in whatever jurisdiction they
| operate.
|
| But the "internet routes around censorship" folks are
| usually talking about company-less code (or information),
| in its pure sense.
|
| _That_ is effectively influenced by only two variables:
| the cost of copying and distributing it.
|
| Digital technology has driven that number far lower than
| it's historically existed. And in that, it's a
| fundamental change.
|
| To cast into concrete terms, we're talking about Facebook
| (company example) vs DeCSS (code).
|
| Facebook cares if Pakistan or the US says something must
| be so. DeCSS doesn't.
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > But the "internet routes around censorship" folks are
| usually talking about company-less code (or information),
| in its pure sense.
|
| Is it company-less, though? Code is useless without the
| silicon that brings it to life, without the people that
| maintain that silicon, without the power grid that
| energizes it, and without the data links that connect it.
| Like I understand what you're saying, you're saying that
| the pure technology itself is the liberating part, and I
| agree with that about halfway. But code doesn't run on
| nothing. To run your code, you'll need a computer, either
| in your home or business. That computer is sold to you by
| a vendor, and it's connected to internet sold to you by a
| different vendor, and is powered by electricity sold to
| you by a different vendor. Ergo, your code is dependent
| upon the infrastructure to which you are in turn beholden
| to. And none of this changes if you use AWS or whatever,
| you're just adding more vendors and more middlemen, who
| in turn are buying the needed things from whomever else,
| etc. Ultimately, if whatever authority decides you must
| not proceed with what you're doing, that can be enforced
| in numerous ways, all of which mean that you will not
| proceed. Or at the very least, will make it much harder.
|
| We saw this recently with the Parler fiasco.
|
| > To cast into concrete terms, we're talking about
| Facebook (company example) vs DeCSS (code).
|
| But DeCSS only works with DVD drives sold to you by
| manufacturers in PC's sold to you by manufacturers,
| running on electricity sold to you by a utility. The
| code, the information, that's free. But taking it and
| doing something _useful_ with it, in this case decrypting
| DVD 's, requires hardware, and if for whatever odd reason
| the U.S. State Department decided that nobody was ever
| going to use it in the States again, maybe they couldn't
| stop it entirely, sure, but they can make it infinitely
| more difficult to do so.
| Jetrel wrote:
| I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral
| relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit
| agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite
| a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural
| movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So
| we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change
| these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies
| we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in
| whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly
| evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen
| to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations
| in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship).
|
| A company like Google might not have the power to say no
| to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to
| have considerable heft against a nation that can't
| credibly mount a replacement for something like Google.
| Laws aren't absolute - like all other human institutions,
| they're subject to pressure. Put enough pressure on and
| they can switch from something being forbidden to being
| allowed. (In the past, corporate pressure has been "up to
| and including outright overthrow of a government", in the
| case of what was done to the Honduras on behalf of the
| United Fruit Company, so ... some options are off the
| table because they're immoral, but corporate pressure
| don't have any hard ceiling on what it can theoretically
| accomplish.)
| FlownScepter wrote:
| > I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral
| relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit
| agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite
| a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural
| movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So
| we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change
| these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies
| we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in
| whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly
| evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen
| to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations
| in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship).
|
| And my point isn't to denigrate those efforts as they
| are, merely to point out that the fact you're permitted
| to engage in those efforts is contingent on those efforts
| remaining ineffective. Those in power will never concede
| power to those without peacefully, this is a lesson
| history teaches us all the way back to the city state of
| Ur. If you ever were to engage in efforts that caused
| legitimate destabilization of the power structures above
| you, those efforts would be put down. Probably legally,
| possibly violently, but they _will be put down._
|
| The fact that some Governments are quicker to pull the
| metaphorical triggers, doesn't mean the others are
| therefore not armed.
|
| > A company like Google might not have the power to say
| no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely
| to have considerable heft against a nation that can't
| credibly mount a replacement for something like Google.
|
| This presumes the Government in question sees value in a
| thing it is trying to actively remove. Like I'm not
| trying to be rude, but do you think it's a major concern
| of Pakistan's leadership that their people have ready
| access to Stadia and Chrome? Or the search engine itself,
| for that matter?
| sanxiyn wrote:
| AWS and GCP could start by allowing domain fronting
| again.
| jariel wrote:
| This is not a very god argument and it that can be used to
| justify the worst possible actions including genocide.
|
| The 'problem' here - is that outside actors are forced to
| become 'complicit' with all sorts of laws that are
| potentially an objectively 'bad'.
|
| By removing app restrictions by Apple and Google - we remove
| the complicity, making the issue squarely one of Pakistani
| authoritarianism.
|
| With Google, at least there are ways to install apps without
| their app store, with Apple, obviously not.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| That would be nice if phones were open and free, but they
| aren't. For many, especially in developing nations, the phone
| is _the_ way to access the internet. If Google /Apple
| wouldn't have such a stranglehold on the world of mobile
| phones, people would be free to choose which app repo they
| use or which apps they sideload. But sadly, they are not.
| sofixa wrote:
| How would they be free? A country like Pakistan could just
| as easily block any service that provides content they deem
| illegal ( as is the case here) via the ISPs( SNI sniffing,
| DNS blocking, IP blocking) that can't disagree.
|
| If anything, Google and Apple have more leverage than
| F-Droid or similar because Pakistan can't block them
| without significant backlash, and needs their cooperation,
| which is at least debated ( point in case, the article says
| a few of the apps weren't blocked by Google).
|
| And furthermore, anyone can install any apk or app store
| serving apks on Android devices.
| lordloki wrote:
| Right now Pakistan is able to block any service they deem
| as illegal by getting Google and Apple to block it. They
| have two gates they need to close.
|
| If users could load any apps they want outside of the
| google and apple stores there would be many gates that
| countries like Pakistan would need to close. Not only
| more gates but new gates opening every day. Basically, it
| would be the old internet model, which is very difficult
| to control.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| On Android it is relatively trivial to install
| applications from outside the Google Play Store.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| True, but with a catch.
|
| If your app requires some sort of background
| functionality (it is a messenger, or anything) you would
| have to run through some ugly hoops to keep it running,
| or you have to rely on push notifications. And push
| notifications are not available for sideloaded apps.
| dmortin wrote:
| Andriod is open in the sense that you can sideload apps
| independently of the play store, you just have to enable
| it.
|
| So in such countries the movements with banned apps should
| post step by step guides for their followers of how they
| can enable sideloading and install the banned app.
|
| On iPhone you have to root your phone for sideloading, so
| that is a closed system for the average user, but on
| Android there is an option for that, so no rooting is
| required:
|
| https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-
| and...
| DSingularity wrote:
| Yeah I agree with you that the sovereignty of people should
| be respected. But shouldnt we draw some line?
|
| Say Israel makes a law that Arab citizens should be tracked
| through a digital symbol to identify that they are of the
| non-Jewish subset of the population -- should US companies
| comply? And I specifically choose Israel because it has a
| history of discrimination against its Arab population.
| gataca wrote:
| If you wanted to be more historically accurate it would be
| the reverse, with Islamic nations forcing Jews and other
| religious minorities to carry symbols identifying non-
| muslims (the yellow badge for Jews has a long history in
| islamic countries and predated its use by the Nazis).
|
| I guess that wouldn't apply now since most Jews have been
| ethnically cleansed from the Islamic world, allowing you to
| focus on potential future crimes of Israel. lol
| sofixa wrote:
| > allowing you to focus on potential future crimes of
| Israel
|
| You mean active current and historical crimes of Israel,
| surely?
|
| Two wrongs don't make a right, and many people and
| countries discriminating or massacring Jews historically
| doesn't excuse Israel's apartheid state, crimes against
| humanity and international law violations.
| gataca wrote:
| > You mean active current and historical crimes of
| Israel, surely?
|
| I was responding to OP's precog-like prediction of future
| crimes, so no.
|
| > Israel's apartheid state, crimes against humanity and
| international law violations.
|
| Overuse of these words/concepts has turned them into
| buzzwords and has steadily devalued them. Works well for
| virtue-signaling online though.
| DSingularity wrote:
| Really? Those are all just buzzwords? Do you really
| believe that?
| DSingularity wrote:
| What you claim seems funny since so many Israeli Jews
| were once morrocan and remember Morocco warmly.
| silentsea90 wrote:
| If the pattern tells you anything, US companies will
| comply.
|
| The major notable case of non compliance has been Google
| not entering China, which I argue has been more to do with
| internal activism than the company's preferences. Would
| also say that it is harder to leave a country once you're
| in it than not entering in the first place, so I think
| Google might not have left China if that were the case.
|
| Apple happily conducts business in China and I am
| absolutely certain allows backdoor access to the Chinese
| Government. Arguably, the US getting backdoor access is
| almost as bad so we should already be up in arms about
| this, but I don't see a protest anywhere.
|
| Hope the new privacy and decentralization wave makes it
| very hard to spy on people.
| gostsamo wrote:
| I'll say it here again:
|
| There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law,
| make the law a crime.
| sofixa wrote:
| Even the definition of basic human rights is disputed. Just
| check the topics of abortion, access to internet, property,
| religious freedoms, sexual orientation. In some countries
| some of those are defined as basic human rights, in others
| some are outright banned.
| gostsamo wrote:
| Yes, and those countries are places that people usually
| look for how to leave.
| EGreg wrote:
| Yes, we keep saying this. But the alternative is right in front
| of us... it is the open Web and related technologies.
|
| If someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would
| be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or
| Apple.
|
| Wordpress powers 40% of all such websites. But for Web 2.0
| where are the open source alternatives? Discourse? We need
| something that can handle chatrooms, videoconferencing and
| more, and can be hosted anywhere.
|
| All around the world, we need such web based tools.
| sofixa wrote:
| > someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would
| be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or
| Apple
|
| ISPs are still in Pakistan, so if the country wants, there
| are a myriad of ways to block a website. Most are
| preventable, but for the majority of people the site will be
| effectively blocked.
| EGreg wrote:
| Okay so replace DNS with DHT, and have people use Tor or
| Beaker browsers with Dat or MaidSAFE
| everyone wrote:
| This is a good example of why walled gardens are so awful.
| Sometime they seem fine, but if all one can access is a walled
| garden, then all kinds of dystopian shit becomes trivial to
| implement.
|
| Please never support walled gardens!
| jacknews wrote:
| Of course I disagree with religious or any other intolerance,
| but, if you want to do business in Pakistan, you have to follow
| their rules.
|
| It isn't a case of 'caving to pressure', but of 'complying with
| the law', since the apps are available in other countries, just
| not in Pakistan, where they are deemed blasphemous, according to
| their laws.
| simion314 wrote:
| Sure, but if the users could side load applications then even
| if the government would demand the giants to remove X app or
| book the user could find a way. People were listening to
| forbidden radio stations in secret and this was possible
| because DRM did not exist on the radio and TV equipment.
| lupire wrote:
| Google allowed side loading these apps, right? At least for
| now?
| simion314 wrote:
| Yes, Android allows side loading but in fact it depends on
| the company that makes the device. Apple makes the OS and
| the only iOS devices so they control everything.
| gostsamo wrote:
| There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make
| the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much
| have changed since then.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's always worth remembering: Google couched leaving China
| in 2010 in humanitarian / ethical terms, but the reason they
| left was extremely clear: they got hacked internally by
| Chinese agents using physical access to the intranet. While
| Google got their security house in order, the most prudent
| course of action to protect their own company (including
| their employees) was to cut that physical access.
|
| Google restarted business in China around the same time it
| was able to bring the BeyondCorp initiative online.
| threatofrain wrote:
| But Google leaving hasn't improved the civil rights situation
| in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond
| the scope of Googles.
| adaml_623 wrote:
| I'm going to disagree with you there. Have civil rights in
| China improved or worsened? Could they be even worse if
| Google hadn't left.
|
| You're right that this is beyond the scope of Google in the
| same way that it's beyond the scope of any individual. But
| together humans can slowly influence other humans and doing
| the right thing might be a tiny influence but eventually
| these might add up.
| koshnaranek wrote:
| We don't know if Google's actions did make them a tiny bit
| less bad or not
| gostsamo wrote:
| Yes, but Google are not cooperating in that. If you are
| witnessing a crime that you cannot stop, does it mean that
| if the criminal gives you a thousand or even a million
| dollars, you will help them because the crime will happen
| anyway?
| threatofrain wrote:
| When you make a moral call, do you not forecast a fork in
| the road where you might choose the morally superior
| destiny? Or does one merely move moral words without the
| corresponding conviction to move moral results?
| gostsamo wrote:
| Lots of "moral" in your comment and it crowds the meaning
| for me.
|
| If you are accusing me that I'm preaching and not
| following my own words, that is a big assumption on your
| side.
| threatofrain wrote:
| > 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have
| changed since then.
|
| This is what I'm accusing you of. How has Chinese affairs
| changed for the better after Google?
| gostsamo wrote:
| If you see a man being killed, would you go to the killer
| and say: "This guy is already dead and nobody can
| prosecute you because there are no sheriff in the county,
| but if you pay me, I'll help you with your laundry."?
| Because the question is not if Google can transform CCP,
| but if it would take part in its crimes. Unfortunately,
| there is no God or well-supplied jewish conspiracy that
| sits above us, knows everything, and can deliver direct
| consequences for our actions. So, we have a choice to
| make: to act in our direct interest or act against it and
| bet on a vague conjecture that a collective sacrifice
| will deliver a better future for everyone. So, asking if
| the choice of one changes anything is the wrong question
| in this case.
|
| Of course, all things above are not simple. There is the
| prisoners dilema "if not me, then someone else will do
| it", and "if it is me, I can prevent even worse from
| happening", but there is also the "slippery slope" where
| making small concessions leads to more and more
| concessions. So, everyone make there choices and we all
| leave with the consequences.
| sateesh wrote:
| Not OP. But are you telling since Google's course of
| action didn't had any impact of altering actions of
| Chinese government, they (Google) should have stayed put.
| [deleted]
| joshuaissac wrote:
| I agree that Google needs to follow the law where they operate.
| I do think they should have challenged the demand in court,
| however. That would show that they at least tried to stand up
| for their app developers.
| antihero wrote:
| Perhaps is more companies refused to do business in a country
| due to diabolical laws, people would start voting against
| politicians that create diabolical laws.
| levosmetalo wrote:
| So it's up to Google and other international companies to
| decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and
| which can be tolerable? Why not going all the way down and
| let those companies write beautiful laws and also enforce
| them, everywhere in the world?
| vharuck wrote:
| >So it's up to Google and other international companies to
| decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and
| which can be tolerable?
|
| Why not? They, like anyone else traveling or doing business
| internationally, should decide which countries should be
| avoided. They can use whatever opinions or judgements they
| want. It is _possible_ for a huge international corporation
| to have some sway on a country by not doing business there.
| But that 's not always a bad thing. I'm more afraid of bad
| governments never suffering from bad decisions than this
| slippery slope.
| biswaroop wrote:
| They're private companies. They're free to decide which
| countries to serve in. That is very different from
| dictating the laws in the countries. In one case, they're
| sacrificing profits for company values. In the other case,
| they're forcing others to follow their laws. I honestly
| wouldn't care if a conservative Christian software company
| decided not to do business in California because they
| thought the state had immoral laws. That doesn't mean
| they're forcing their laws on us.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > So it's up to Google and other international companies to
| decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and
| which can be tolerable?
|
| Why not? If they can decide which speech is tolerated on
| their platforms and which isn't, then why not this?
| sanxiyn wrote:
| I am waiting for comments from Alphabet Workers Union. They said
| they "demand that the tech industry refuse to maintain
| infrastructures of oppression". This seems like a perfect fit.
| wtf_is_up wrote:
| Slactivism is fun when you can use it to enhance your social
| capital, but doing the actual work is a chore.
| patwolfe wrote:
| I think once they got to the point of forming an actual union
| (which, at Google, has a historical risk to job security) the
| "slactivism" potshots became inarguably unwarranted.
| dahfizz wrote:
| They call themselves a union, but until they start doing
| union things, some skepticism is warranted.
| patwolfe wrote:
| Agreed - I think skepticism is usually warranted, and
| there are unions that are very active in doing "union
| things" in America that do more harm than good to the
| working class. I just took issue with the "slactivism"
| complaint specifically, because by starting the union the
| employees involved put themselves at risk of being fired.
| To me, continuing to call that slactivism is moving the
| goalposts to an unfair degree.
| screye wrote:
| Information and Economic warfare should be seen as no different
| than physical warfare with weapons. (That is the crux of 4G and
| 5G warfare as is officially acknowledged in militaries today)
|
| Google & Apple provide asymmetrical resources to 1 group
| (Pakistani Govt.) over the other (Ahmidiyas). This is no
| different than the US selling weapons only to the Saudis but not
| to Yemen.
|
| The Saudi situation is clearly seen by everyone as morally
| deplorable. However, Google and Apple aren't subjected to any
| scrutiny.
|
| I don't expect profit oriented companies to have any morals.
| However, Tech companies have spent an entire years of marketing
| expenses towards virtue signalling and claiming to be the ones
| who uphold morals. They have dug their own graves, now they must
| lie in it. They will deserve every twitter and internal storm
| created by a fresh scandal.
|
| If McKinsey had blood on its hands for causing the Opioid
| epidemic, then so do Google and Apple for the persecution of the
| Ahmediyas. (Note: Ahmediyas are the only strictly peaceful sect
| of Islam. They are not militant insurrectionists or actively
| traitorous in a manner that would warrant violent reaction)
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| It is all about the money , why do people expect companies driven
| by shareholder "value" think they should have be moral ???.
|
| Do no evil is a pipedream.
| swiley wrote:
| Anything popular on a smartphone app store is compromised. If it
| weren't it would get taken off. See also: the recent de-
| platforming of Element (Matrix.)
| rubycon22 wrote:
| Why don't they just go make their own app store? Who do they
| think they are that they believe they have some right to someone
| else's hard drive. They're private companies brO!
| aNoob7000 wrote:
| I'm worried about the future of computing devices. With Apple and
| Google going with the walled garden approach, What's to stop any
| government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal?
| newscracker wrote:
| Nothing to stop any government. This has already happened in a
| few countries, especially with banning apps of a certain kind
| or apps from certain countries.
| triceratops wrote:
| The government is the sole decider of what's "illegal".
| ur-whale wrote:
| By definition, in most places, govts have a monopoly on
| physical violence (i.e. : they have the most guns).
|
| So, to answer your question that starts with "What's to stop
| any government", the answer is : nothing.
| username90 wrote:
| Governments have mostly failed to stop websites. Moving from
| websites to appstore apps gives governments more power. It
| also gives giant corporations more power. So it is a bad
| development if you fear giant corporations or governments.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google
| that an app is illegal?
|
| Nothing; that's most of the idea of a government.
| fleshdaddy wrote:
| It would seem to me that in the case of apps they're telling
| us what information is legal. That isn't most of the idea of
| government for people.
| [deleted]
| neil_s wrote:
| Since the underlying issue here is clearly with Pakistan's laws,
| I tried looking up how effective a democracy Pakistan is, so that
| its people would be able to push for freedom of speech laws (or
| overturning the blasphemy laws) if they so wanted.
|
| Hard to find unbiased sources on this, but it seems like while
| Pakistan has technically had democratic elections for a while,
| they have been mired with issues until fairly recently. From
| wikipedia: "The democratic elections held in 2008 were the first
| to conclude a complete 5-year term in the nations' political
| history."
| screye wrote:
| Pakistan is as much a democracy as Bhutan or China.
|
| Every (I do not exaggerate, you can actually check, since 1970)
| ex-leader of Pakistan was either assassinated, imprisoned or in
| exile.
|
| Pakistan is military state, with the thinnest facade of
| democracy. The only people who are allowed to run are those who
| are already endorsed by the military.
| CryptoPunk wrote:
| The digital commons should be run on censorship resistant
| ledgers, like distributed public blockchains.
| bcheung wrote:
| We have been seeing deplatforming happen more and more these last
| few months. Seems like this is going to accelerate a
| decentralized Internet.
|
| It's going to be exciting times with a lot of societal questions
| and problems to be answered as these new technologies take off
| and the old model of advertising and free services for personal
| data get replaced with a new model.
| fmajid wrote:
| Pakistan's persecution of the Ahmadis is despicable (and that of
| Hindus, and Christians), and Apple and Google's meek compliance
| is craven.
| ycombigator wrote:
| Censorship I don't like...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Hackernews threads seem to be overwhelming against most
| censorship so you may be preaching to their choir - the
| silence on the censoring of some hard left groups is a little
| disappointing.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Unless it is Parler then most Hacker News threads are pro
| censorship.
| echelon wrote:
| If you argue against censoring Republicans on HN, you'll get
| downvoted.
|
| We should oppose censorship of any form. We have a legal
| framework to deal with terroristic threats, child porn, and
| libel / slander.
|
| This year has shown the incredible power FAAMG yields with
| deplatformization, but they've been using their power to cave
| to authoritarian regimes and belittle minority populations
| for awhile. It all has to stop.
|
| Big platforms should be common carriers. If content is
| illegal, tell the FBI or get your lawyer to sue for damages.
|
| Similarly, if an American company can't operate overseas
| without trampling on basic rights and civil liberties, they
| shouldn't be doing business there.
|
| I'm a liberal and side with Stallman and the FSF. Censorship,
| monopoly power, and fascism are bad. Don't defend the
| instances of it you like. It's all bad.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| I generally support what you're saying, however there are
| two complicating factors with the Parler deplatforming that
| make me tolerate it. Not accept it, but tolerate it.
|
| 1. Parler was being used specifically to plan out acts of
| terrorism; and their moderation team took no action to stop
| it
|
| 2. Parler was not a free speech platform
|
| On that first bit: while I generally want big platforms to
| be regulated like common carriers, they definitely should
| not be prohibited from making judgment calls as to what is
| and isn't illegal to publish. If you're a web host and
| someone sends a tip that someone's operating a fake bank
| login page on your service, you shouldn't have to wait for
| someone who got scammed or phished to get a court order
| before you can shut down obviously illegal activity.
|
| For an example of why that's a problem: DMCA 512 has a case
| law loophole in which the moment any amount of human
| moderation happens to a website, the site loses it's
| copyright safe harbor. So if you have a recommendations
| algorithm or content ID bot, you have safe harbor. If you
| hire humans to curate content or search for infringing
| content, then you're liable for anything you miss to the
| tune of millions of dollars in damages. This creates a
| legal incentive to willful blindness.
|
| Parler isn't blind, though. The platform wasn't intending
| to be a neutral, free-speech content host. They _were_
| moderating the platform - just not for violence. Parler was
| a platform created for Trump extremists and them alone, and
| they had a history of removing left-leaning or left-wing
| users from their platform. So under any sort of "common
| carrier for social media" law they still lose.
| coryrc wrote:
| How The Capitol Assault Was Planned On Facebook
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/how-us-
| capito...
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Parler was not used by the rioters. Nobody who was
| arrested planned anything on Parler, but they did use
| Facebook and Twitter.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| "But Facebook did it too" isn't a great argument for
| Parler. If anything, you're arguing for more legal
| pressure on Facebook, not for getting Parler their AWS
| account back.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| We were told Parler aided in the riots, but they did not.
| If Parler actually did what they were accused of that
| would be "but Facebook did it too". Facebook and Twitter
| did it and Parler did not.
|
| >If anything, you're arguing for more legal pressure on
| Facebook, not for getting Parler their AWS account back.
|
| I am arguing for consistency. Parler was accused of
| something they did not do. They were found guilty by
| Amazon, Google and Apple. It then came out they were
| innocent, but the real perpetrators (Facebook and
| Twitter) and not being punished.
|
| If what Parler was accused of doing was so serious that
| removing them from app stores and AWS was the correct
| move then it seems like if people were consistent they
| would be calling for the same thing with the real
| perpetrators. I haven't seen any widespread support for
| removing the apps from the app stores.
|
| The whole thing feels political and not real outrage
| which is what I was trying to convey.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for
| their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion,
| and I'll start being concerned.
|
| As long as people of any party regurgitate lies about
| election results against all evidence, and those lies seem
| to be fomenting violence, I'm leaning towards "it's okay"
| to remove them from certain sites.
|
| I disagree the big platforms should be common carriers. I
| think ISPs and datacenters should be.
| babesh wrote:
| Your logic is shit. Who decides on what are lies? Are
| they perfect and unbiased? It's far more than election
| results deniers that are being banned nowadays. If you
| ban lies then you should ban astrologists, most
| politicians, flat earthers, indeed most people.
|
| This isn't a thought experiment. This has been happened
| throughout history. The Church imprisoned Galileo for
| saying that the Earth goes around the Sun. McCarthyism
| caused many people to be fired for their beliefs. Indeed
| may left wing people are now being banned from the
| platforms. Furthermore, many more people are voluntarily
| silencing themselves (which is what the platforms really
| want).
| babesh wrote:
| Also, are they going to ban election deniers from other
| countries? I read about one election in an African
| country where someone got more than 100 percent of the
| vote (more votes than there were voters, oops). Should we
| ban people who deny that election?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Watch that slope, it's slippery!
| babesh wrote:
| Yup, and we are going down it right now.
| criddell wrote:
| > Let me know when Republicans start getting blocked for
| their political philosophy rooted in evidence and opinion
|
| Have you considered that their political philosophy has
| changed to exactly the things you listed?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I didn't list any philosophy; I listed attributes of
| philosophies and having those as qualifiers for whether
| someone is being censored on social media.
| natch wrote:
| Changed, what, like the wind? Hypocrites will say
| whatever they think will get them what they want at the
| time. Change is a given with hypocrites. Principled
| philosophy is not.
| criddell wrote:
| The MAGA part of the GOP's philosophy seems to be (or
| was) back Trump no matter what. For those people
| parroting election lies said by Trump is their political
| speech. Political speech doesn't have to be truthful or
| grounded to a philosophy, does it?
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I can't speak for others, but what I was defending is the
| right of a private entity to determine who can and cannot
| be on their platform [0]. You can admonish them for it,
| boycott them for it, or even hate them for it, that's your
| right.
|
| I'm against this whole concept of people feeling entitled
| to access to a platform just because that platform is big
| and popular. If you have a problem with what they are doing
| then stop using them and stop promoting them. They have
| power because they are popular, so take that power by
| making them unpopular. If you are unwilling to take even
| these small steps then clearly you don't even care that
| much about the issue, so why should anyone else?
|
| And I also personally reject the idea that these places [1]
| should be 100% uncensored. I've seen what the uncensored
| places look like and extremely few people really want that.
| There is a reason those places are not popular. I will not
| accept any argument predicated on the idea that all
| censorship is bad, which is pretty much entirely the
| argument against Trump deplatforming.
|
| [0] Only because they are not a monopoly, no matter what
| people claim. The fact that there are so many big players
| in internet communication is testament to that.
|
| [1] That is, communication channels not owned by the
| government. The government has to respect the 1st
| amendment, no one else is beholden to it.
| sanxiyn wrote:
| Note that content in question here is, in fact, illegal in
| Pakistan.
| rfrey wrote:
| I haven't seen much if any support for "censoring
| Republicans" on HN, or for that matter, anywhere. What I
| have seen is support for censoring groups instigating
| violent overthrow of US institutions. The fact that those
| advocating such violence call themselves Republicans does
| not mean people are advocating for censoring Republicans as
| a class.
|
| These words matter to me, because unless you are a free-
| speech absolutist (which most people are not), it's unfair
| to mischaracterize what sorts of things people are claiming
| cross the line. It's not being Republican.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I'd say I always found it strange how Ahmadis are universally
| persecuted in Pak, but a dozen way more funnier sects thrive.
| You constantly see some weird pirs, and "faith healers" on TV
| in Pakistan.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Are there still those wall chalkings for "aamil Junaid
| Bengali" all over Karachi? Edit: I guess not -
| https://www.dawn.com/news/918676/faith-healer-gets-three-
| yea...
| Arun2009 wrote:
| Unfortunately, this is not a Pakistan specific thing. Ahmadis
| have been persecuted in pretty much every major Muslim nation.
| See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis
|
| Prima facie, it'd seem that the common factor enabling their
| persecution is Islam.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't cross into religious flamewar in HN comments.
| Your comment would be fine without the last sentence.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| margalabargala wrote:
| I don't think that's a fair assessment of Islam.
|
| The whole issue seems to be an internal argument among the
| Muslim community- so Islam is a necessary precondition for
| this problem, as it's the subject matter of the issue, but
| not the causative agent.
| sbmthakur wrote:
| It's no longer an internal argument among Muslims. Laws of
| various countries do not identify Ahmadiyyas as non-
| Muslims.
| Veen wrote:
| Yes, it's unfortunately not that unusual in the UK. An Ahmadi
| shopkeeper was killed in 2016 by a Sunni taxi driver
| motivated by the shopkeeper's "heresy" [0]. A London mosque
| got into trouble last year for distributing 'kill Ahmadis'
| leaflets [1]
|
| [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/09/tanveer-
| ahme...
|
| [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47654430
| yorwba wrote:
| The list of countries in that article also includes Belarus,
| Belgium and Bulgaria, where the common factor seems to have
| been Islamophobia instead.
| devlopr wrote:
| That's an issue affects all muslims in those countries and
| many non-muslims who may appear that way.
|
| Islam does have a huge internal debate over which branch is
| correct that has never been settled. To not accept this
| group of people is unique in Islamic countries because they
| have been using this as a weapon against minorities by
| creating separate laws. By extending to other muslims this
| is more about trying to make them lower members of society
| with less rights and an excuse for mistreatment without
| breaking religious morals. You are allowed to do things to
| non muslims that wouldn't be acceptable to a muslims.
| dartharva wrote:
| It's so horrifying to realize that something like "Anti-blasphemy
| laws" and the internet coexist in some countries.
| sanxiyn wrote:
| Such as Switzerland.
| buran77 wrote:
| Many European countries (like Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain,
| Portugal, Finland, parts of UK*, Poland, Russia) have
| blasphemy laws going as far as mandating prison terms, even
| if they rarely convict or even indict anyone under them.
|
| * corrected from "UK".
| peteri wrote:
| Formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008. Still on
| the statute books for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
|
| Although a lot of anti-racist hate speech stuff could be
| used for the same effect in England and Wales.
| zo1 wrote:
| Governments are wisening up. Tinfoil hat me says they're
| replacing "blasphemy laws" with more politically
| palatable yet more vague "Hate speech" laws that are
| ridiculously loose and can be applied how they see fit,
| including prosecuting blasphemy-like criticism of
| Religion. See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
| #So...
| sofixa wrote:
| I don't see anything ridiculously loose about that law:
|
| > No person may publish, propagate, advocate or
| communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited
| grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be
| construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be
| hurtful,be harmful or to incite harm, promote or
| propagate hatred. [65]
|
| > The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex,
| pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin,
| colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion,
| conscience, belief, culture, language and birth
| zo1 wrote:
| That sentence you quoted is incredibly vague. What
| exactly does it mean to promote hate?
|
| Or lets take that quote and pick one cross section of
| word salad that they can use as a potential cross-product
| with legalese:
|
| "No person may [communicate] words based on [occupation]
| against any person that can demonstrate an intention to
| be [hurtful]." Yes occupation is a protected group in
| that law.
|
| Its all fine and dandy while this law is used to
| prosecute anti-lgbt people as an example. But that law
| will quickly be used to shut down _legitimate debate and
| civilian disagreement_ when they can reframe the group
| /person being hurt by words as a victim. Just look at the
| heated debate regarding immigration. Questioning large
| scale immigration would be "hate speech" under this law,
| whilst simultaneously not prosecuting "hate speech"
| against a closed-borders group of people. Its essentially
| legislating societal-level feelings as valid.
|
| You know, instead of actually having a debate and putting
| it down on paper as law and as an absolute. E.g. If we
| want free borders or large scale immigration, then lets
| just make a law allowing it.
| fleshdaddy wrote:
| Honesty I think you could probably a make a case for any
| insult falling under that law.
| cambalache wrote:
| "I think many religious Jewish groups fuel the Zionist
| sentiment in the Israeli government exacerbating the
| conflict with Palestine. Their influence must be
| curtailed"
|
| Boom!, 10 months in jail for antisemitism.
| liaukovv wrote:
| What does "belief" mean? Is calling someone an idiot for
| believing that earth is flat hate speech?
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| Nowadays, most Western countries with anti-blasphemy laws
| on the books still have those laws precisely because they
| are never enforced. If they were enforced, there would be
| an outcry sufficient to have them immediately overturned.
|
| It is like how the monarch in many a constitutional
| monarchy today technically still has power, but any actual
| attempt to use that power would probably lead to the end of
| that monarchy, at least in its current structure.
| buran77 wrote:
| I think laws like blasphemy laws and ones against hate
| speech are mostly there to serve as a last resort in
| cases that can't reasonably be defended by anyone.
| There's a lot of grey area that's hard to define very
| clearly in law. So the laws generic blankets in order to
| cover a lot of options, then it's left to the prosecution
| to only take action when the offense is really egregious.
| eznzt wrote:
| 2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the
| European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian
| woman's conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad."
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-
| not-fr...
| paganel wrote:
| Not a prison term but just recently a Romanian member of
| Parliament has been fined by Romania's anti-discrimination
| committee for (they say) putting the person of Virgin Mary
| in a non-appropriate context (he had called her "surrogate
| mother").
| sradman wrote:
| How should multinational conglomerates like Apple and Google
| handle sovereign nation states that violate The Golden Rule?
|
| I think the best case scenario is to deescalate the situation
| while also minimizing the impact of the violation; I don't have a
| clue how best to achieve this lofty goal.
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Not operate in those spaces?
| tzs wrote:
| Suppose I've got a search engine. It's the best there is for
| searches in politics, sports, health, education, shopping,
| entertainment, and nearly everything else.
|
| Country X passes a law that says search engines cannot return
| politics results.
|
| If I stay in country X and filter out politics then the
| people in country X end up with no politics search and the
| best search in the world in all the other categories.
|
| If I decide to not operate in X then the people there use
| some second rate search engine that obeys X's law. The people
| of X still end up with no politics search and they end up
| with second rate search in all the other categories.
|
| How does my not operating in X help the people of X?
| ben509 wrote:
| The people can live without your search engine, because
| there are other ways to find content.
|
| It's hard enough to mount resistance against a repressive
| regime when it is blanketed with propaganda.
|
| When companies like Google and Apple operate in those
| nations, they help legitimize and normalize that regime,
| confirming all the propaganda.
|
| After all, the Google brand didn't come from the regime,
| they are a foreign firm that decided it was ethical to do
| business there.
| [deleted]
| cccc4all wrote:
| Apple and Google made business decision to be gatekeepers to
| their platforms. This resulted in great profit for the companies,
| but at great cost of user freedoms.
|
| Many people have celebrated Apple and Google censor and
| deplatform their competition and others with political bias. It's
| a private company, they can do whatever they want.
|
| Pakistan is private country, they can do whatever they want. Now,
| they are using their powers to force Apple and Google censor and
| deplatform.
|
| Slippery slope is slippery and water is wet. As the saying goes,
| power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
| anewaccount2021 wrote:
| where are all the commenters who told us private companies are
| free to filter on private platforms as they see fit?
| Layke1123 wrote:
| Here! I support this! If it makes you want to use a different
| service and are critical of the giant platform that Apple and
| Google have, good!
|
| The other positive here is that one less religion in the world
| is promoted as being equal to all others. I'd rather only have
| to deal with 4 mass delusions than 5.
| [deleted]
| exabrial wrote:
| Censorship by monopolies is worse than censorship by government
| rajma wrote:
| You have to be living in a free country to say that.
|
| Indian government banned internet from Kashmir overnight
| without any notice. Most journos who say anything negative
| against gov are jailed without any court hearing.
|
| I am all for pushing Google and Apple to change their stance on
| authoritarian governments. In this case, the ban is a direct
| result of gov censuring too.
| throwaway123x2 wrote:
| Pakistan's attitude towards Ahmadiyya is trash. It's ridiculous
| to me as a Pakistani that a country born to counter the
| persecution of minorities should so blatantly persecute them
| itself. I genuinely cannot process the hypocrisy.
| [deleted]
| etc-hosts wrote:
| I fell down Internet hole and read
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/ame...
|
| They could have at least spelled Nancy Pelosi correctly.
| paganel wrote:
| It's only normal, they did the same thing when politically
| pressured in the US.
| hartator wrote:
| There is an argument to be made for Apple and Google to not
| create a legal nexus there - just provide the services but no
| payments and no offices there - and don't follow Pakistani laws.
| zupreme wrote:
| For those defending this practice, consider carefully the
| implications of what you are advocating.
|
| On one hand you have a government deciding who can and cannot
| refer to themselves as adherents of a particular religion (by
| declaring that Ahamadis cannot call themselves Muslim).
|
| On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being the
| complicit chokepoints of "free speech", with regard to app
| developers.
|
| These may seem fair to you, but that may be because these
| practices have not negatively affected you...yet.
|
| But consider: Would it be fair if England declared Catholics
| "unChristian" and banned their use if the term? Or what if the
| USA declared hasidic jews "Unjewish" and banned their use of the
| term. Or what if Apple caved to pressure theoretical from Israel
| to ban Jehovah's Witnesses from using the term "Jehovah"?
|
| What next? Government declaring who is and is not "white"?
|
| Oh wait......
| vmception wrote:
| Pakistan has a constitution.
|
| Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government.
|
| There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different
| constitution.
| jshevek wrote:
| > There is no free speech analogy to countries with a
| different constitution
|
| You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a
| legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech,
| and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that
| ethical principle begs the question of the ethical
| principle itself.
| jshevek wrote:
| Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which
| does not apply in this case.
| jfk13 wrote:
| And to insist that "begging the question" refers to a
| specific logical fallacy is to ignore well-established
| present-day vernacular usage.
|
| In everyday discussion, pedantry rarely helps. In this
| case, it was pretty obvious what was meant.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-
| questi...
| vmception wrote:
| Astute observation.
|
| Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into
| every legal issue.
|
| The entire discussion to me is as simple as I stated.
| jshevek wrote:
| > Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus
| into every legal issue.
|
| Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming
| an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate
| efforts to address moral aspects of the issue.
|
| If the moral aspect of an issue has universal consensus,
| there is little to discuss. This criteria shuts down
| meaningful discussion of ethics.
|
| Edit: Laws follow from values, especially in democracies.
| As values change, eventually laws change, including the
| constitution. The gp was raising ethical considerations
| for us to consider. To me it seems like you discount and
| trivialize these concerns.
| vmception wrote:
| Okay fine.
|
| The person I responded to made arguments that were
| primarily about hypothetical legal capabilities of
| western countries, in a bid to make us empathize on an
| ethical issue. Their argument failed because their
| analogies would have actually have to look at what legal
| route each country individually chose to accomplish their
| censorship. Which means looking at how Pakistan
| accomplished this censorship first. Pakistan has a
| constitution that supports this and requires the rulers
| to be arbiters of what is and isnt represented as muslim.
|
| The reality then is that I did not comment on an ethical
| issue at all because my comment was not about that and
| won't be, because there is no mystery about the legal
| authority of Pakistan to do that and the path to
| consensus of changing that is so high (big assumption
| that I would care to do so or care about that discussion)
| that it is far outside of the scope of this particular
| discussion.
| justicezyx wrote:
| Usually, the assertive arguments on non-technical ideas
| are difficult to address.
|
| It's easy to identify the fundamental misconception in
| the argument. But the proponent is always very fervent on
| that point from the very beginning. That makes the debate
| more ideological and less rational.
|
| That's the conundrum of such debates. The balance heavily
| favors the first one who claimed the high ground,
| regardless what value that one actually stands for.
| whynaut wrote:
| Can you elaborate on this? I feel like I grok 55% of
| this, and that it is probably worth grokking, if I could
| get there.
| w0mbat wrote:
| >"Would it be fair if England declared Catholics "unChristian"
| and banned their use if the term?"
|
| I assume you know that happened all the time during the
| Reformation period with Henry the Eighth starting it, with a
| contrasting bit in the middle where Bloody Mary persecuted non-
| Catholics instead. They were bored and the internet hadn't been
| invented yet.
|
| Once kings and queens weren't in charge, things got a lot more
| relaxed in that area.
| jariel wrote:
| "These may seem fair to you"
|
| I don't see 'seeming fair' to most people.
|
| This is just yet another example of Google and Apple's monopoly
| preferences being leveraged by entities that have more leverage
| than them.
|
| It has to stop.
|
| Free The Apps.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| It took me a second to get this argument, but it's a good
| one. If there were thousands of marketplaces on iOS and
| Android, then Pakistan would have to negotiate the removal on
| all of this platforms, as opposed to only two.
|
| Spelling it out clearly like that, it makes me wonder if
| there are many governments that prefer to have monopolies to
| deal with, rather than many companies. It certainly makes
| regulation simpler.
| jariel wrote:
| I personally worked for a large tech company and was
| involved with 'content filtering discussions' with
| questionable regimes.
|
| HN doesn't like such arguments, it's not an argument, just
| an experience.
|
| It's common.
|
| Pragmatically speaking, it's much harder for Pakistan to
| filter the entire web, than control international
| conglomerates which they generally can do.
|
| We need diversity in search, and absolutely need to have
| 'many app stores' and 'direct downloads'.
|
| The arguments for 'security' are rubbish, and the plebes
| supporting Apple's monopoly I don't think understand what's
| happening.
|
| In US anti-trust cases, generally there has be evidence of
| 'harm to consumers' - well - these 'bans' absolutely
| represent harm. Bans of Apps (even unsavoury things like
| Parler) and unquestionably arbitrary controls on choice
| that harm consumers. Moreover, Apple's 30% cut is a pretty
| obvious harm once you do the economic calculation.
|
| So Apple should be more like Google - and - just as the EU
| has proposed with search wherein you get to choose your
| vendor, not defaults negotiated behind the scenes - the
| same goes with app stores.
|
| Once the regulatory action is taken - we will still have
| secure apps, and there will be greater opportunity. In
| hindsight it will seem obvious and actually kind of simple.
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do
| the economic calculation.
|
| Not really. You have to compare it to a counter-factual,
| and those are generally made up to support whatever
| position you already hold.
|
| Also, it's not 30%. It's 15% for almost all developers.
| jariel wrote:
| Evidence of Apple's monopoly are actually baked right
| into that rate. They are price-setters, not subject to
| the whims of the market, and adjust their prices given
| non-market forces (press, threat of regulation etc.)
|
| It's a high enough number that it absolutely changes
| outcomes, meaning at minimum less choice for consumers
| and higher cost, and implicitly, a whole host of lost
| opportunity.
|
| In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that
| can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning
| Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit.
|
| As a small operation, in the corner of the economy, it
| doesn't matter, but this is unfolding like the
| Edison/Tesla/Westinghouse battles of the last century and
| we know how that ended up.
| zepto wrote:
| > In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that
| can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning
| Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit.
|
| False. Apple doesn't take a percentage from enterprise
| distribution.
|
| Also, you didn't provide a counterfactual, which is
| exactly my point. The 15% on its own is indicative of
| nothing.
| username90 wrote:
| You can look at how many governments have managed to keep
| websites they don't like down. Thepiratebay and tons of
| other illegal sites are still available today in most
| places of the world even where they are illegal.
|
| If we didn't have the free open web and instead just had
| appstore like gatekeepers none of those sites would be
| allowed to exist.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The PTA isn't stopping at walled-garden App Stores; Google
| and Apple are just one of the few countries large enough to
| have a physical presence Pakistan can threaten. They also
| threatened a handful of US-based web hosts who are basically
| prohibited from seeing their families until they censor this
| sect.
|
| (And yes, I'm using the word 'censor' here. It is entirely
| appropriate under even the narrowest definitions of the word,
| as the decision to remove content was made with the force of
| law. The US has similar provisions known as the 'state actors
| doctrine'.)
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| I wouldn't say that I'm defending the practice. It's a bad
| decision and I wish Pakistan wouldn't censor these apps.
|
| But it really does seem like the responsibility lies with
| Pakistan here. The article suggests Google's trying hard to
| keep these apps up, and has indeed kept some up despite
| government pressure. At the end of the day, their options to
| resist legal demands are limited, and it's hard for me to see
| an argument that this relatively small instance of censorship
| is so important they should shut down operations in Pakistan
| over it.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| > At the end of the day, their options to resist legal
| demands are limited
|
| They're really not. Google is not based in Pakistan, and they
| don't have offices or datacenters in Pakistan.
|
| Why should they take _global_ action against developers who
| are _located in the US_ on the request of someone who does
| not have jurisdiction over them?
|
| It's interesting how this plays out in reverse to the typical
| copyright fights - people violating US intellectual property
| law in Pakistan (or wherever) are often litigated under those
| US laws; here they're litigating against Americans based on
| Pakistani laws.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Indeed, in the final appeal that failed in Pakistan against
| these laws (Zaheeruddin v. State) the Supreme Court bench
| cited the Coca-Cola trademark as an example
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| Im sure they do sell ads in Pakistan and want in the
| future?
|
| An independent state could strangle that business in many
| easy ways if that is their mission, therefor Google will
| eventually do whatever it takes to stay in the market.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| They shouldn't and haven't taken global action against the
| developers. The apps remain available outside of Pakistan -
| you can find them if you search for "ahmadiyya muslim
| community quran".
| d1zzy wrote:
| > On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being
| the complicit chokepoints of "free speech", with regard to app
| developers.
|
| And how is that detail is pertinent to this discussion?
|
| If it wasn't Google or Apple it would be other companies. Even
| if it wasn't large companies it would be 100 smaller companies
| and all those 100 smaller companies would have to comply (even
| more so because they have fewer resources to fight a government
| deciding things in their own country).
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Smaller companies might not have as much commercial exposure
| in Pakistan - i.e. if they have no formal business presence
| there, what would be the consequences for them not complying?
| For example, if these "apps" were traditional Windows
| executables instead who would the government on Pakistan lean
| on to get them blocked? The best they could do is attempt a
| "great firewall of China" style block on internet traffic
| itself.
| u801e wrote:
| The fundamental issue with the argument you're presenting is
| that Pakistan is not a secular country, unlike England or the
| USA. An example of a country that bases their government on a
| particular religion allowing citizens to freely declare whether
| they're adherents of that religion even if their practice
| differs significantly compared to established orthodoxy would
| significantly strengthen this assertion.
| Veen wrote:
| > Pakistan is not a secular country, unlike England or the
| USA
|
| It's a minor quibble, but England does have an established
| national Church, so it's not entirely secular in the way the
| US is. 26 CofE Bishops sit in the House of Lords, the Lords
| Spiritual. The head of state is also the head of the Church.
| imbnwa wrote:
| It is so fascinating how fascinated all these Germanic
| kingdoms in Western Europe were with emulating the Romans
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Why? Rome was vastly richer and more powerful than they
| were, and the only model of success they ever knew.
| danans wrote:
| Until Henry VIII's divorce of Catherine of Aragon,
| England had the same church as Rome.
| username90 wrote:
| Yet England feel way more secular than USA in practice,
| given how much Christianity seems to matter in US politics.
| DigiDigiorno wrote:
| The highly religious nature of US settlers is directly
| connected to our secular freedoms. A lot of early
| settlers were pretty extreme practicers of their
| religions and faced persecution in Europe. They left to
| practice their religion in a place where they wouldn't be
| burned as a heretic. It's interesting that these opposing
| extremists were able to get along separately by agreeing
| to keep the government secular
| shadowgovt wrote:
| It's an interesting piece of American history worth
| drilling down on.
|
| The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom originated from
| one of the Southern colonies, which tended towards more
| English mainstream religion (Jefferson himself was raised
| in the Church of England, but considered himself a
| Deist). It served as a sort of "non-aggression pact"
| between the religions, since the various sects of the
| Northern colonies had quite a bit of political power by
| virtue of concentration of their adherents and isolation
| from traditional European religious power.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > They left to practice their religion in a place where
| they wouldn't be burned as a heretic.
|
| Not true, at least in the obvious case of the Pilgrims of
| Plymouth. They were perfectly free to practice their
| religion when they lived in the Netherlands. They moved
| away because they wanted to create their own strict
| theocratic colony. The Netherlands, in their eyes, had
| _too much_ religious freedom.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| There is a lot of debate over why they moved. e.g.
|
| -running out of room -economics -impending war -wanting
| to venture into the unknown
|
| https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91317/holland-
| first...
| DigiDigiorno wrote:
| Even that specific example is a bit of a gray area imo.
| They were persecuted in England and tried to live in the
| Netherlands but found life hard to adjust and were also
| wanting to keep their English identity. So, it is more of
| persecution by the Church of England that pushed them
| away.
|
| The Netherlands do get a point here for tolerance imo.
| Veen wrote:
| Yes, and that's related to the formation of the Church of
| England too. The religious settlements in the reign of
| Elizabeth I and others aimed to bring Catholic-leaning
| and Protestant-leaning believers together in one broad
| church, but it couldn't accommodate every sect, so some
| were excluded from the national church, persecuted, and
| eventually left. You can still see the division today in
| high and low Anglican churches.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Is it ok to sell weapons of war to a country engaging in
| ethnic cleansing, and if not - why not?
|
| After all, the country is allowed to decide it's own rules
| and laws. If it decides ethnic cleansing is allowable, we
| should follow that right?
|
| Of course not! Just because a country decides some action is
| legal doesn't make it moral or ethical - and knowingly aiding
| an unethical act is itself unethical! We do and should
| absolutely shun and punish countries engaging in things like
| ethnic cleansing - even if they're assisting a country that
| has deemed it legal.
|
| Why in the world would religious prosecution be some kind of
| special case?
| onethought wrote:
| Well it isn't murdering people. So it's not quite
| equivalent.
| djbebs wrote:
| Given that the UK is quite literally a theocracy i wouldnt
| say there is much of a diference there...
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Being secular doesn't preclude governments from engaging in
| nearly equivalent behavior with regard to other issues.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| This is why separation of religion and state is a good idea,
| but not all state-level entities do this for various reasons.
|
| Anyway ... if
|
| - a home entity is operating in a foreign realm,
|
| - obeys the laws of the foreign realm,
|
| - brings back money to the home realm,
|
| - doesn't try to turn the home realm into the foreign realm.
|
| what is the problem?
|
| Just because a company operates in a foreign realm under their
| laws doesn't mean it's trying to turn its home realm into the
| foreign realm.
|
| Now, if the entity is partially owned by the foreign realm ...
| then we can question motives, of course.
| loveistheanswer wrote:
| Here's some historical precedent of how that can be a
| problem:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
| umvi wrote:
| > Would it be fair if England declared Catholics "unChristian"
| and banned their use if the term?
|
| I think it's slightly more nuanced than that. For example,
| England _should_ be able to declare whether a given group of
| people are members of the _Church of England_ (organization).
| Wherever a centralized authority exists, that authority should
| have the power to declare whether or not someone is a member of
| the organization. The Catholic church should absolutely be able
| to declare some rogue sect that claims to be Catholic
| "unCatholic".
|
| However, you are absolutely right, where no centralized
| authority exists no one should be able to classify others' high
| level beliefs. Whether someone is Jewish, Christian, Islam,
| Atheist, etc. is not up to anyone but the individual adherent.
| If you believe in Jesus Christ and believe you are following
| his teachings, you are a Christian and no government or
| conglomerate of sects should be able to say otherwise. If you
| believe in Mohammed and the tenets of Islam, no government or
| conglomerate of sects should be able to say you are not a
| Muslim.
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| Ironically, the British government once claimed to dictate to
| non Anglicans that they couldn't hold the same names of
| bishoprics as CofE bishops.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829
|
| Hence why the RC primate of England is the Archbishop of
| Westminster, not a dual RC Archbishop of Canterbury.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Not everyone agrees with any given central authority. In
| religion especially this is often over relatively complex
| reasons that outsiders probably aren't in a position to try
| and navigate. You need only to refer to religious history and
| it's many wars to see this: the tri-part nature of Christ,
| the exact date of Easter, the shaving of heads in early
| English history, etc.
|
| Nor should we start allowing the Church of England to press
| Google into service putting it's agenda forward. We recognize
| that dissent is an important part of free speech!
| CivBase wrote:
| > England should be able to declare whether a given group of
| people are members of the Church of England (organization).
| Wherever a centralized authority exists, that authority
| should have the power to declare whether or not someone is a
| member of the organization. The Catholic church should
| absolutely be able to declare some rogue sect that claims to
| be Catholic "unCatholic".
|
| They should have the power to _declare_ whether or not they
| consider someone to be a member of an organization. Nothing
| more. This goes beyond simply declaring whether or not they
| consider Ahmadis to be Muslims. The Pakistani government is
| using "anti-blasphemy" laws to silence anyone who objects to
| their declaration.
| jmull wrote:
| The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that
| Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.
|
| If you live in a society without religious freedom, that's a
| big problem, but Apple and Google _can 't_ fix it.
|
| If you care about the problem, it's important to understand
| this. If you succeed in getting people to focus on symptom of
| the problem and not the cause, you will help prevent it from
| being addressed.
| Shivetya wrote:
| Leave out the word religious. Lack of religious freedom
| usually comes along with a lot of other rights being trampled
| on.
|
| We must admit that there are people in this world who do and
| say things we do not agree with. However the same system
| which expands from trampling on religious rights to other
| rights is no different than a system which tramples on
| another right and eventually tramples religion.
|
| Corporations have little choice when faced with government
| intervention and we cannot seriously hold these corporations
| accountable for bowing down to political pressure elsewhere
| when we allow our own government a free pass for doing the
| same or turning a blind eye to it.
|
| To change how businesses operate abroad we must change how
| our government operates. We should hold both to the same
| standard but government must lead because it has the courts,
| the arms, and the laws, to pressure one but the other has
| little it can do to pressure it
| d1zzy wrote:
| > The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea
| that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.
|
| Nor should they even attempt to, because the moment they get
| involved in policy making you have an army of HNs complaining
| how large corporations influence politics.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| No one asked for them to get involved in policy making.
| They're referring to making their platforms more open such
| that neither Apple nor Google have complete dictation of
| what is downloaded and installed.
|
| Especially in Apple's case, this would be a useless ban if
| they let people download apps outside of the App Store.
| username90 wrote:
| Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they
| became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms
| where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never
| have happened.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Those open platforms exist. Can the apps in question be
| downloaded in Pakistan via F-Droid?
| fakedang wrote:
| What about the iOS users? AFAIK, it's more likely the
| Ahmadiyyas have iPhones since they are a relatively well-
| off community compared to the rest of Pakistan (or the
| Muslim world in general).
| shadowgovt wrote:
| Very good point. I had my viewpoint focused on Android
| and forgot that the side-loading question on Apple is
| very different.
| sneak wrote:
| You're right that if they ran open platforms where they
| don't have the power to ban apps this never would have
| happened: someone else who made a basically malware-free
| experience for phones would be in that position instead.
|
| An "open platform" where every inexperienced user can
| install whatever they want on their device is a world where
| most every phone has several remote access malware/spyware
| packages installed on it.
|
| Centralizing these functions is good, in some respects.
| sk5t wrote:
| Just as we have laws that prevent US organizations from
| giving or taking bribes even in countries where bribes are
| legal (FCPA), and US laws prevent US individuals from
| overseas sex tourism which would be illegal on US soil,
| what prevents us from requiring US organizations not to
| participate in religious oppression, child exploitation,
| and other such acts?
| zepto wrote:
| Nothing. That would be a good way to solve this problem.
| yibg wrote:
| Would this not just lead to a fragmentation of whatever
| industry? e.g. if google / apple can't legally do
| business in Pakistan or some other countries because of
| these laws, presumably someone like China will step in
| and provided the missing products or services. Not that
| this is necessarily a bad situation ethnically anyways,
| but there are consequences.
| mcguire wrote:
| You would further have to require US organizations not to
| do business with other organizations that participate in
| oppression, etc., transitively. And have to have a way to
| enforce that.
| d1zzy wrote:
| How come would that not happen? Apps come from somewhere
| and they are installed on someone's platform. The
| government can simply ask the provider of those apps to
| stop providing them and/or the provider of the platform to
| stop allowing for them to be installed. Your only choice
| then is to comply or stop doing business in that country.
|
| So the only reasonable complaint I could see against these
| companies now is "maybe they should have stopped doing
| business in that country" which would allow them to take
| the high moral road. Ofc that wouldn't necessarily result
| in better freedom for the people in the country, just fewer
| services than the rest of the world but it is a possible
| choice.
| readams wrote:
| If the provider of the app has no footprint in the
| oppressive country, and Apple and Google have control
| because they have open platforms, then the apps will
| continue to be available.
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| Does Pakistan force Microsoft to bar the installation of
| Ahmadiyya software on Windows? I expect not. Windows,
| closed source as it is, is open relative to iOS and
| consequently is less vulnerable to this sort of pressure.
| jjav wrote:
| > provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to
| be installed
|
| The fact that this is possible (worse on iOS) is the
| architectural and political tragedy of these app stores.
| A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have
| any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned
| device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce
| them into banning this or that.
| sneak wrote:
| > _A "provider of the platform" should have no power to
| have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned
| device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce
| them into banning this or that._
|
| What if end users who buy the device WANT the
| manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device
| malware- and spyware-free?
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| Do you think Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan _want_ Apple
| and the Pakistani government to forbid them from
| installing the software they like? Do you think they feel
| safe because of this? It is common for totalitarian
| systems to cite user /citizen safety to justify
| themselves. I encourage you to see past this bullshit.
| sneak wrote:
| I am talking about my own telephone, also from Apple.
| passivate wrote:
| >Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they
| became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms
| where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never
| have happened.
|
| In this particular case, what problem would open platforms
| solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social
| problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple
| and Google should be on the hook for solving religious
| problems in other countries? If so, I think wanting
| companies to engineer social behavior in other countries is
| a dangerous path bordering on the unethical (IMO).
|
| But having said all that, whats stopping a country from
| simply blocking their hosting servers? Ultimately, the app
| has to be downloaded from somewhere. Okay, so then you move
| to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block
| that,etc ,etc. It's just whack-a-mole.
| zapdrive wrote:
| Each of the two alternate steps you mentioned are an
| order of magnitude more difficult than just banning the
| app.
| passivate wrote:
| I don't think its an order of magnitude. Blocking CDNs
| that host APKs and P2P traffic is fairly easy to
| implement. Most firewalls will let you do this. The more
| wide-scale you want to deploy your app, the easier it
| will be to detect (more asymmetry) and block the hosting
| source.
|
| Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I
| believe the best approach to the problem is solving it
| bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as
| well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing
| "western morals" on a developing country.
| foolmeonce wrote:
| You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless
| it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and
| US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana
| republics.
|
| Why is this law good? The US has a long history of
| corporations owning too much in banana republics and
| bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _...US companies end up selling off their holdings in
| banana republics._ "
|
| Do you have a source for that? I have run across
| instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid
| the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a
| "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no
| attention to how the consultant gets the business done),
| but I know of none _getting rid of their businesses in
| other countries._
| foolmeonce wrote:
| Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual
| crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments
| to govt side), though they had the new problem of
| terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| > _Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe
| people abroad_
|
| IANAL but this is only partially true from what I
| understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money".
| (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job
| properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a
| public official to do something they shouldn't. But the
| distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous
| in many possible scenarios.)
| passivate wrote:
| Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to
| in your comment?
| foolmeonce wrote:
| I think you are saying companies should break US laws
| regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad
| in order to honor foreign laws if that is necessary in
| order to operate in a country.
|
| I think they should not consider operating in that
| fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on
| their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to
| less ethical US competitors who stay.
| passivate wrote:
| I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business
| to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US
| allow that?
|
| On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant
| corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the
| internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds
| of moves will be perceived very differently by the
| locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as
| liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind
| :)
|
| I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully
| using other means, rather than by forcing a government to
| adopt your views because you threaten them with economic
| consequences by pulling out of the country.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > what problem would open platforms solve?
|
| If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there
| were many competing app stores, then people could get
| around theses bans more easily.
|
| For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone,
| and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so,
| via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if
| Apple banned the app from the app store.
|
| > whats stopping a country from simply blocking their
| hosting servers?
|
| They could do that, but if it was easy to install apps on
| a phone, then it would be very difficult for a country to
| block _every_ website that hosts the app.
|
| > . Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the
| get their ISPs to block that
|
| Governments are not infinitely powerful. An efforts to
| get around government internet censorship, sometimes
| work.
|
| And the more methods there are of circumventing
| government censorship, the easier it is to do so.
|
| Censorship has an effect. But it is not perfect. There is
| a spectrum of behavior, where it can be easier or harder
| to get around censorship.
| passivate wrote:
| You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a
| business into their country, while the business is
| working against the interests of said government. Apple
| and Google are businesses who operate in various
| countries with the objective of making money.
|
| I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be
| in charge of engineering social behavior around the
| world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a
| business into their country
|
| But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold
| in the country.
|
| It is already allowing people to purchase devices that
| could work against the country.
|
| > should be in charge of engineering social behavior
|
| Intel is already selling PCs though.
|
| Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should
| act more like what intel is already doing, by selling
| unlocked electronics?
|
| > In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
|
| So you think that any company that is selling unlocked
| devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
| passivate wrote:
| >It is already allowing people to purchase devices that
| could work against the country.
|
| Because they made a mistake once, they should make it
| twice? Well, that isn't likely to convince them!
|
| >Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies
| should act more like what intel is already doing, by
| selling unlocked electronics?
|
| You seem to be really passionate about this, and somehow
| think that I oppose open platforms. I never said that,
| and I don't.
|
| >So you think that any company that is selling unlocked
| devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
|
| No, I don't think that. Please stop putting words in my
| mouth. This is simply not a good faith conversation. I'm
| out.. sorry.
| klagermkii wrote:
| Laws don't matter without the ability to enforce them.
|
| Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised
| control, but that is what allows those countries to very
| easily enforce these kinds of laws.
| passivate wrote:
| Yes, I agree with what you said.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Apple and Google can't fix Pakistan. They can control how
| they respond, though. And how they responded looks pretty
| spineless.
| jmull wrote:
| What do you think they should do?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Me? I think they should close any facilities they have in
| Pakistan, tell Pakistan plainly that they're not going to
| do that, and keep making the app available. (Of course, I
| don't own any stock, so it's kind of painless for me to
| have that opinion.)
|
| The thing is, neither Apple nor Google wants a future
| where the only apps available are those that lie in the
| intersection of what is legal in 180 different
| jurisdictions. (I mean, Myanmar just blocked Facebook.
| What if they demanded that Google and Apple remove the
| Facebook app from their stores?) The alternatives are to
| have a different store for each country (do-able
| technically, but a lot of work, and I don't like it on
| freedom grounds), or to just say no to some countries'
| demands that some apps be removed.
|
| Specifically Apple: You had the "1984" Super Bowl
| commercial. Are you now going to be on the side of the
| censors? Or are you still on the side of freedom?
| dalmo3 wrote:
| > the only apps available are those that lie in the
| intersection of what is legal in 180 different
| jurisdictions.
|
| On Android at least, apps can be region-locked.
| jmull wrote:
| > keep making the app available
|
| Leaving Pakistan means shutting down their Pakistani App
| Store, so the app still won't be available.
|
| (Someone could, say, put the app on the US store and
| Pakistanis might be able to figure out a way to get it
| from there... but they can do that either way.)
|
| > ...The alternatives are to have a different store for
| each country
|
| OK, I guess you don't know this yet, but that's the way
| it is and has been the whole time. Different laws,
| different stores. We already aren't stuck with the
| intersection of what's allowed in 180 different
| jurisdictions.
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| > _Leaving Pakistan means shutting down their Pakistani
| App Store, so the app still won 't be available._
|
| If Apple chose not to exercise totalitarian control over
| iOS users by making their App Store essential to
| installing software on iOS devices, then Apple would not
| have to collaborate with the totalitarian Pakistani
| government. Pakistani religious and ethnic minorities
| could distribute software through whatever covert
| channels they've already established to resist their
| oppressive government.
| rcoveson wrote:
| And the (rather massive) flaw in yours is the idea that
| "fixing" and "not fixing" a problem are the only two possible
| outcomes.
|
| Would Apple and Google condemning this policy and refusing to
| comply "fix" the problem? Probably not. Is it the right thing
| to do? Of course! One certainly shouldn't _help enforce_ an
| unjust law. This action lends a huge amount of credibility to
| an immoral policy.
|
| We're focusing on this mere "symptom" of the problem because
| it's Apple and Google. Our laws govern those companies. Our
| (seemingly theoretical) ability to control them means we are
| partially responsible when they do bad things.
| jmull wrote:
| Ultimately "refusing to comply" means exiting the Pakistan
| market (and accepting arbitrarily harsh fines and criminal
| punishments for their employees until they do).
|
| > One certainly shouldn't help enforce an unjust law.
|
| The law is being enforce on them. Your moral responsibility
| for a situation is proportionate to your power over that
| situation. Apple and Google have some sway due to their
| size, but it seems to me it's limited. I suspect that in a
| direct sense they largely suck money out of the Pakistani
| economy rather than pump money in, which really blunts
| their influence.
|
| > Our laws govern those companies.
|
| In Pakistan, Pakistani laws govern those companies. The US
| (and other nations) could impose economic sanctions on
| Pakistan for this (which would affect the business Apple,
| Google and others from do there). If that's what you want
| then you need to be lobbying your politicians.
| rcoveson wrote:
| I'm confident we only disagree on the threshold of
| injustice. Surely there is a point where exiting the
| market is the only moral thing to do? Or does the
| responsibility-proportional-to-power argument justify
| subjecting your business to _literally any_ law?
|
| To me, this law is past the threshold where it is morally
| acceptable to continue to do business in that nation. For
| you, that threshold is somewhere else, but I'm _confident
| that you have one_. Which of the following semi-
| hypothetical laws would it be acceptable for an American
| company to enforce, rather than ceasing business
| operations in the country?
|
| 1. Take-down of apps used to propagate what the state
| considers blasphemy
|
| 2. Take-down of apps used to advertise the democratic
| candidate of the party opposing the party in power
|
| 3. Requirement that the location data of all users of a
| certain set of apps, e.g. Grindr, be actively provided to
| state officials
|
| 4. Requirement that the location data of all users be
| provided to state officials with a court order
|
| 5. Same as 4, but without a court order
|
| 6. Requirement that the state be given the ability to
| arbitrarily adjust the prominence of web search results
|
| I could go on, but you get the picture. I'll bet there
| are things on this list that you would be uncomfortable
| with your employer, or an American company whose services
| you used, helping to enforce. There are also probably
| some things on the list that you think are futile for
| individuals or companies to resists, even if you wish the
| law wasn't that way. I think that's is all there is to
| our disagreement: That we draw the line in a slightly
| different spot.
| jmull wrote:
| > Surely there is a point where exiting the market is the
| only moral thing to do?
|
| Agreed.
|
| But I don't think this case is it. Mainly because exiting
| does pretty much nothing to prevent Pakistani persecution
| of Ahmadiyya Muslims. It's like you see a bully picking
| on a kid every day at the park and you just decide to go
| to a different park. Maybe you feel a little better about
| it yourself, but it doesn't help the kid.
|
| This can be done on a larger scale, which will have a
| strong impact. I'm talking about economic sanctions via
| the UN or at least the US, where certain kinds of
| business are not allowed or restricted. In theory these
| kinds of sanctions could force countries to liberalize.
| But the reality isn't always that great. The general
| population ends up bearing the economic misery while the
| people in power, who make the decisions, do not. The
| general population tends to get resentful of the west,
| not adopt its values, and the people in power keep
| enjoying their power anyway. It seems these sanctions can
| turn countries inward, not outward, becoming more extreme
| and less liberal. North Korea, Iran, Russia.
| rcoveson wrote:
| > It's like you see a bully picking on a kid every day at
| the park and you just decide to go to a different park.
| Maybe you feel a little better about it yourself, but it
| doesn't help the kid.
|
| I think this is a really good analogy if you flesh it out
| completely.
|
| Eve is bullying Alice, and says that anybody who plays
| with Alice will be chased from the park. Alice asks to
| play with Bob, and now Bob has a choice to make.
|
| Bob thinks, "If I play with Alice, it won't last long.
| Eve will force me from the park, and Alice won't get to
| play anyway. And I won't be able to play either! At
| least, not at this park."
|
| So Bob decides the right thing to do is to continue
| playing with the other kids at the park, but never Alice.
|
| I think Bob made the wrong call here. The alternative was
| not merely "deciding to go to a different park", it was
| standing up for Alice. The cause of his departure, and
| the fact that it was Eve that forced him, is important.
| It's not just Bob who "feels a little better about
| himself", it's Alice.
| loveistheanswer wrote:
| >The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that
| Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.
|
| What makes you say that?
|
| I see nothing in their comment which implies Google and Apple
| could or should solve the problems of oppressive countries.
|
| If a criminal who wants to commit murder asks me to sell them
| a gun and I decline, it would be absurd to think that implied
| I thought I could solve the problem of murder.
|
| Rather, I would simply be refusing to be a conscious, direct
| enabler of murder. It would be nakedly malicious for me to
| reason "well, if I don't sell them this gun, someone else
| will, so I might as well make some money."
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| If we got to that situation, that would be the result of far
| greater problems than having or not having a particular app.
| gadders wrote:
| This isn't censorship, this is just a private company deciding
| who is and isn't allowed on their platform.
|
| All Ahmadiyya muslims have to do is start their own company to
| make mobile phones and probably their own search engine as
| well.
| jshevek wrote:
| > This isn't censorship, this is just a private company
| deciding who is and isn't allowed on their platform
|
| This fits the definition of censorship. Maybe you meant to
| say this isn't governmental censorship?
|
| Edit: Poe's law
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I think you miss gadders' point. This was the response when
| private companies "censored" the extreme right in response
| to January 6.
|
| So, is it right in one case and wrong in the other? If so,
| why?
| jshevek wrote:
| Yes, Poe's law.
|
| Elsewhere you say:
|
| > explains some of the change in tone here on HN
|
| 2020 was the year of HN's eternal September, facilitated
| by the behavior changes brought by c19. If you can
| recommend a similar forum that still retains a culture of
| objectivity I would be very interested.
| [deleted]
| triceratops wrote:
| > this is just a private company deciding who is and isn't
| allowed on their platform.
|
| No, this actually is censorship because a government ordered
| that it be done.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| And, increasingly, their own banking and internet routing
| infrastructure as well.
| baybal2 wrote:
| FYI, Pakistan's biggest banks are owned by Ahmadis. Quite a
| number in India too.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Citation? You'd think they'd be being boycotted like
| Shezan was then. And the claim about India is even more
| out there. Are you sure you're not thinking about Memons
| like Adamjee?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| djrogers wrote:
| You make a great argument for _Governments_ that support
| religious freedom. Not sure I follow your logic to a conclusion
| that makes Apple and Google the villains here though.
|
| A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country
| X) or not. There is no choice that involves serving those users
| but not following the oppressive laws of said country.
| mabbo wrote:
| > A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive
| Country X) or not
|
| I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing
| when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an
| ethical person. You're just an opportunist.
|
| Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing
| because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them,
| well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal
| costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing.
| Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you
| don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.
| sneak wrote:
| Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law,
| operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical
| control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and
| censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to
| iPhone users in China.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-
| compl...
| alacombe wrote:
| Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies)
| complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the
| almighty $$.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance
| and left China I thought?
|
| It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get
| back in...
| bitL wrote:
| It always starts with a "new leadership"...
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| No matter what the PR departments of these corporations
| would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's
| always about the money. These corporations are fair-
| weather activists _at best_.
| MikeUt wrote:
| Notice that Debian wasn't forced to take down any apps, which
| shows choice 3: Do not place themselves in the position of
| arbiters of what apps their users may run (either by
| technical locks, such as Apple, or by making alternatives
| extremely inconvenient, such as Google).
| nomoreusernames wrote:
| french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and
| freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had
| this thing where they chopped of skin from their babies
| genitals. would you be ok with that? why is it ok when
| religious people do it? clearly following dogma in this case
| over reason is the symptom of mental illness or damage.
| religions are much more oppressive if you ask me. they
| function without a state or government. they are a low
| evolved form of government used to gain power.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > french secularism is beautiful.
|
| Unless you wish to wear religious articles.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Not sure if what you're talking about is French secularism,
| but I definitely agree with it up until the "mental
| illness" part. That part is where things become dangerous.
| Sure, churches and religions aren't special and they should
| follow the exact same rules as any other group of people
| and/or legal entity. But the moment you start mandating how
| people should think/what they should believe, even if their
| beliefs are ridiculous, you're going down one hell of a
| slippery slope.
| webmobdev wrote:
| > french secularism is beautiful.
|
| As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea
| of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but
| the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some
| what extremist (but understand their historic roots).
|
| Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and
| European democracy (especially France), but is not similar:
| The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian
| Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance
| of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from
| Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to
| all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion.
|
| ( _' Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith
| Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred'_ : Madras High Court Warns
| Evangelist While Quashing FIR -
| https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-
| religi... ).
|
| In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it
| has to _compete_ with religious ideas for its existence.
|
| So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity
| in a government office or in public schools. So unlike
| France (and some other European states) that would frown on
| a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their
| respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in
| government office, all these practices are quite common in
| India.
|
| One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the
| unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust.
|
| And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a
| society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious
| country like ours, restricting cultural practices can
| create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of
| each other when they are exposed to each others culture,
| including religious ones, and understand it.
|
| Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for
| the majority to understand the minority, and the minority
| to be comfortable in the society because everyone is
| encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if
| not acceptance).
|
| Another reasoning is that the state understands that every
| human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state
| doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily
| religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority
| practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness
| and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and
| thus eschews being anti-religious.
|
| Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it
| encourages reformists to work with the respective section
| of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have
| gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as
| political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over
| the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly
| done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow
| approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable
| and lasting in society.
|
| We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now
| after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism
| using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't
| come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are
| now facing the same issue as the political party in power
| tries to push a religious identity on to our country and
| make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed
| in India.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's beautiful for the government to threaten you with jail
| if you wear something the government believes to be
| religious?
|
| ha
| rat87 wrote:
| Laicite is stupid
|
| France doesn't understand freedom of religion, a
| fundamental human right which they have pledged to uphold.
| Take the french school headscarf ban or the stupid outrage
| about the Burkini
| mr_toad wrote:
| > freedom of religion, a fundamental human right
|
| They believe in not forcing people to follow a state
| religion. That's not the same as letting people do
| whatever they want because "religion".
|
| It's not like most religions believe in freedom of
| religion anyway. The same people who argue for the right
| to wear certain headwear belong to a religion that
| prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Apple is in a self imposed category of only legit legal way
| to install software on users devices and is thus morally
| keeping users from practicing their religion.
|
| The logical thing is to make Apple decide between servicing
| the entire American and European market and caving to
| repressive regimes.
| mindslight wrote:
| Actually there is. Don't set up physical presences in
| oppressive countries. Architect your software to not rely on
| singular chokepoints like centralized servers.
|
| We've seem to have forgotten this, because it's not
| economically expedient. But we shouldn't give these companies
| a pass for having set themselves up to be instruments of
| totalitarianism.
| mcguire wrote:
| According to the article, Pakistan (along with China,
| Vietnam, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia among others)
| requires physical presence and data localization in order
| to do business.
| mindslight wrote:
| Or what? A physical presence is one of the only leverage
| points they'd have over you. If you don't accede to that,
| what are they going to do?
|
| Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than
| Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the
| two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple
| _could_ have set themselves up this way, likely with the
| full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to
| and now predictably find themselves being used to
| implement totalitarianism.
|
| Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands,
| but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built
| in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is
| finding themselves under such pressure, because they
| simply don't have the technical capability to control
| what users run on their computers.
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| > Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware
| brands,
|
| I agree with your general point but not this part. Apple
| products still find their way into countries with no
| Apple Stores. I don't think selling physical products
| really makes the situation much sticker. If Apple chose
| to be a pure hardware company and refused to do _any_
| business in Pakistan, Pakistanis could still purchase
| Apple devices through the usual resellers and /or
| [black/gray]markets. Pakistan would have no leverage over
| Apple, as you point out, and Apple would not be a
| participant in the implementation totalitarianism (as
| they presently are.)
| andrewnicolalde wrote:
| By following this oppressive law to "serve those users,"
| Apple and Google appear to be _partaking_ in the oppression
| of those users.
| pas wrote:
| Is oppression additive/cumulative/composable/transitive?
|
| When someone has the power to do "fix" things but chooses
| not to, then that someone is partially responsible. Can A
| or G (or together) fix this?
| franga2000 wrote:
| For one, not being able to use Google or Apple products
| would be such a hit to the modern way of life that people
| might become less complacent. To be very clear, I am not
| blaming the people in any way for the situation they are
| in, but it makes sense that people would be more likely
| to stand up to tyranny when something very important to
| them is swiftly taken away. Even the simple act of taking
| a stance against these practices might inspire people to
| fight for their freedom.
|
| Now, of course, all of these are small chances and all
| the ususl caveats of revolutions apply, but surely G&A
| continuing to do business there benefits nobody but
| themselves?
| snoshy wrote:
| It sure seems additive in this case. Google & Apple can
| choose not to do business in regulatory regimes that are
| oppressive in nature. That obviously comes at a direct
| cost of lost revenue from abstinence. It is a deliberate
| _choice_ to do business anywhere at all. The simple fix
| here as you say, would be to stop doing business when
| forced to enact business practices that further
| oppression.
|
| Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the
| choice to assent to this.
| pas wrote:
| If they choose not to do business will that fix the
| problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away?
|
| Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might
| not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the
| question.
|
| The question is how does oppression algebra works. An
| oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es
| omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing
| private companies to selectively deny service to a
| minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook
| oppression.
|
| How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases
| sum-total-oppression?
|
| (I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps
| people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the
| economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their
| supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to
| blockade/bombardment/etc.
|
| In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the
| math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the
| oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely
| oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same
| oppression.
|
| So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about
| vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very
| textbook case.
|
| In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is
| supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime
| uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the
| service helps?)
| dzmien wrote:
| I am not sure if it is that simple, and I think companies
| have little choice but to be greedy, because if they
| choose not to be greedy, another greedier company is all
| but guaranteed to prevail. I suppose it could be argued
| that companies the size of Apple and Google are not bound
| by the same constraints as smaller companies. But if they
| choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would
| become of all of their existing customers? What about all
| the people who would be deprived of Apple and Google
| products/services?
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| > _But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan,
| what would become of all of their existing customers?_
|
| What happens to Pakistani users of Debian, if Debian
| doesn't do business in Pakistan? Nothing. Those users are
| fine. iOS users would be in a bind only because Apple
| _chose_ to create a system where users are left high-and-
| dry if /when Apple decides to no longer do business in
| any country.
| sjwright wrote:
| A somewhat disingenuous argument. Debian isn't physical
| hardware.
| LiberatedLlama wrote:
| It's not selling physical hardware that binds Apple here;
| it's having an app store that requires the cooperation of
| national government to process payments. Pakistan could
| forbid Apple from opening Apple Stores in Pakistan, but
| Pakistanis would likely still be able to purchase apple
| products through resellers and/or black/graymarkets. And
| if iOS were not locked to Apple's authoritarian app
| store, oppressed ethnic minorities in Pakistan could
| distribute software through through their preexisting
| covert channels.
| desi_ninja wrote:
| an interesting experiment is that with a politically charged post
| on India, many Indians will comment to criticize their own
| country and Pakistanis and some middle East folks would chime in
| too. but in case like this where Pak is involved, thry are all
| absent from discourse. not a single pakistani wants to criticize
| their country. Why ?
| [deleted]
| pknerd wrote:
| Going to make an unpopular opinion:
|
| Well... Their content is being blocked on behalf of their own
| government while Pakistani social media content, especially
| Twitter content is being banned by Twitter India on behalf of
| Indian government. Recently my account was restricted when I RTed
| tweets of an Indian raising voice against farmer protest and once
| I got banned because I RTed a tweet about atrocities in IOK.
|
| We also witnessed how parker app was banned and how many content
| is taken down on behalf of Many governments.
|
| The point is, many counties are involved in such wicked
| activities one way or other regardless of who is pro democracy
| and who isn't.
| kahlonel wrote:
| To get an idea how rampant Islamism is in Pakistan when it comes
| to Ahmadis, read this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
| pakistan-politics-idUSKCN...
|
| Pakistan will literally sacrifice its economy for the sake of
| keeping Mullahs happy. It's sad and despicable.
| r00fus wrote:
| You speak as if the same isn't in effect everywhere else. Sure
| the example here is more stark, but look at the sacrifice of
| environment and warmongering the US does for the oil industry,
| or look at any number of moves China makes to benefit members
| of CCP party members over it's populace.
|
| It is sad and despicable and entirely human nature.
| ryanmccullagh wrote:
| By "caving" to governments, it seems like Apple and Google are
| trying to prevent new regulations from being implemented that
| would harm their businesses. Think about that for a second.
| Google is huge. Billions of dollars are at a stake for not only
| them, but their shareholders.
|
| If Google is nice to the government, perhaps their good behavior
| will be remembered when it comes to voting on new legislation
| that would harm their business and shareholders.
| illustriousbear wrote:
| They're a private company guys.
|
| I thought you were all ok with private companies doing what they
| want.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-05 23:01 UTC)