[HN Gopher] Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments
Author : ig0r0
Score : 437 points
Date : 2021-03-31 06:50 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jessesquires.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jessesquires.com)
| googledidtoo wrote:
| Apple fanatics- they are just following orders, Google does it
| too, it's no big deal
|
| Apple fanatics about any other company- privacy, security, lies.
| Off with their heads.
|
| I genuinely can't tell if Apple has been astroturfing for decades
| to create this kind of loyalty because their actions have been
| poor to customers and employees since the 2000s.
| hyko wrote:
| Capitalism is perfectly compatible with Authoritarianism,
| Fascism, and worse.
|
| We cannot rely on the agents of Mammon to rid the world of
| authoritarianism. That is a hopelessly naive approach. They're
| just not that interested, and they're a poor fit for the job.
|
| Capitalist companies are good at making things, they're good at
| making profits, but _by design_ they are useless for meaningful
| social change and increasing freedom, because they themselves
| require the maintenance of a world of peasants and kings.
| jmull wrote:
| I think it's pretty damn weird people think Apple should probably
| be solving the problem of authoritarian governments around the
| world.
|
| Apple isn't Superman. It's just a company selling phones and some
| other things. Their leverage over the legal and regulatory
| systems various countries is limited... a very good thing, BTW.
| If they had more, do you _really_ think they would use it only
| for good?
| nromiun wrote:
| > July 2017, Apple removes VPN apps from China App Store
|
| This is the only thing keeping me from buying an iPhone. Their
| control on what apps you can run on your phone is absolute. This
| may not be a problem in liberal countries where pretty much every
| website is available. But in some places VPNs have become a
| necessity.
| researcher7 wrote:
| It's not only apple. Almost all of the big tech doing that these
| days, either out of concern about their manufacturing resources,
| or other motives. Something I won't support, but can understand
| their motives behind. But I am trying to understand how this part
| fits in the list.
|
| "November 2019, Trump re-election campaign ad shot in Apple's Mac
| Pro plant in Austin
|
| Given the context and the headline, Apple working with
| authoritarian governments. Unless the author thinks the US is
| authoritarian.
|
| I don't see any problems with any high tech executive supporting
| one politician or another, if the author is making the alleged
| Tim Cook's support for Trump the reason to include that in the
| list of incidents showing Apple working with authoritarian
| regimes.
| maeln wrote:
| This should be in the mind of anybody using an Apple device for
| its privacy / security feature and not living in a democratic
| country and even in democratic country, but there is usually more
| safe-guard against police overreach in democratic country.
|
| Apple will "take a stand for their users" when they can do it
| with no consequence (for example when they refused to decrypt an
| iPhone for the FBI). But if the country can ban you from doing
| business for not "fully cooperating" with their law enforcement,
| they will abide (unless the country is irrelevant for their
| business).
|
| I won't say that it is any better than using a non-encrypted
| device, or less secured device, since, in a lot of cases, even
| Apple cannot "break-in" their own device. But don't think that
| Apple won't send everything they know about you to your local
| police.
|
| I don't think it should surprise most people (and in a way, don't
| you want company to comply with your laws ?). But when Apple talk
| about privacy, remember that it's privacy toward other company,
| not the government.
| kstenerud wrote:
| > In Seattle, Apple has given the feds vital evidence from one of
| its iCloud users who was arrested for firebombing cop cars during
| the George Floyd protests in late May.
|
| > The case shows how Apple is willing to help even where the
| context of the crime is controversial, namely the Black Lives
| Matter protests.
|
| EXCUSE ME??? Are you saying that firebombing cars is somehow an
| acceptable act in the context of a protest, and that helping
| track down the perpetrator of such an act is a bad thing?
| TheNorthman wrote:
| Nice faux outrage. Perhaps he is saying that utilitarianism is
| a race to the bottom and that our actions shouldn't be based on
| an evaluation of an actions consequences but rather on the
| universality of it, such that we act only according to that
| maxim by which we can also will it to become universal law?
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| This sounds like "the ends justify the means" dressed up in
| pseudo-intellectual verbiage.
| TheNorthman wrote:
| Whether I made it too `pseudo-intellectual' I don't know,
| or perhaps rather, I must have because the point went over
| your head. My point was exactly the opposite, there are no
| desirable ends: either Apple should be allowed to assist
| law enforcement or they shouldn't, regardless of what ends
| this might bring.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| _> March 2021, Apple reportedly agrees to preinstall Russian
| software_
|
| Wait, this regulation is a result of an antitrust case against
| Google and Apple started by Yandex, as both were using their
| platforms against their direct competitor. The same thing that
| many people want to see in EU and US. Clearly it doesn't belong
| to the list and the author did zero research on this, but
| included anyway because it fits the bad guy narrative they are
| trying to push.
|
| What's even funnier is that Apple threatened to withdraw from the
| russian market rather than having to do this, so the question is
| who's the real bad guy here (how about "a tech giant threatens an
| unimportant country to be able to bully domestic competitors"?).
| I guess everybody is horrible in this story, because the
| government had to compromise and omit the requirement to be able
| to uninstall this software, and they also included many companies
| who were large enough to be able to lobby their interests,
| because obviously they didn't want to make a single company
| special. Now Samsung reportedly has a backdoor deal with Yandex
| to install their software as system on Samsung phones, so it's
| being shoved down customers' throats. Nice.
| CubsFan1060 wrote:
| To be clear, this line is incorrect:
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/03/16/apple-to-offer-governme...
|
| They will be offered to be installed immediately, but not
| preinstalled.
|
| Maybe not great, but certainly better than preinstalled.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| And unlike say the copies of Facebook that Samsung has
| preinstalled, you can delete these afterward if you change
| your mind and decide you don't want it. They're not
| unremovably baked into the system.
| aleksi wrote:
| > Now Samsung reportedly has a backdoor deal with Yandex to
| install their software as system on Samsung phones, so it's
| being shoved down customers' throats.
|
| Yandex CEO says there is no backdoor deal, just
| misunderstanding of the law by Samsung, and they asked Samsung
| to make those apps uninstallable:
| https://www.facebook.com/tigrankh/posts/10157500257791403
| lotusmars wrote:
| I don't care whether it was antitrust decision by (kangooroo)
| courts or not. As a Russian, I don't want to use Yandex in any
| capacity since it's complicit with oppressive regime and
| gradually becomes part of it, sharing data and targeting
| citizen with surveillance. One of the reasons I used Apple is
| because it was relatively free of Russian state-sponsored
| spyware.
| nuker wrote:
| > I used Apple is because it was relatively free of Russian
| state-sponsored spyware.
|
| You may search for "icloud servers Russia", it is likely the
| same deal as with China, people's iCloud data accessible by
| state agencies.
|
| What I'm curious about, is how it applies to people with dual
| citizenship, living in another country for decades?
| lotusmars wrote:
| There is a difference between this and VK (owned by
| Mail.ru) basically having a web interface for police or
| anyone with money to read your messages.
|
| You can bring a lot of "Apple is just as bad" outsider
| evidence, but I don't know anyone who had their data leaked
| by Apple.
|
| Yet I have dozens of anecdotal cases of people harrassed
| and targeted by using Russian networks. I mean you can
| basically buy my phone call history and parking
| surveillance for a few bucks online.
| f6v wrote:
| > There is a difference between this and VK (owned by
| Mail.ru) basically having a web interface for police or
| anyone with money to read your messages.
|
| The only difference is that while US law enforcement can
| read Facebook messages, it has no interest in Ivan from
| Samara. But have no illusion: every government wants as
| much access to data as it can, and will use it against
| you.
|
| > Yet I have dozens of anecdotal cases
|
| Still anecdotal.
| f6v wrote:
| As a Russian, I'm using Yandex from time to time and see it
| no better or worse than FAANG. Keep in mind that parent
| doesn't speak for everyone.
| benjohnson wrote:
| As an American, I use Yandex image search for any sort of
| 'edgy' meme that I want to find again - Google image search
| has been filtering anything that might offend.
| 420codebro wrote:
| I use Yandex for reverse image search. Please never ruin
| that.
| novok wrote:
| You can delete and not use the yandex software in this case
| right? It seems more like govt mandated but removable
| crapware added more for protectionist reasons than spying
| reasons in this case.
| sebow wrote:
| From what i've heard(I am not russian but merely from EE),
| it doesn't really matter, because as soon as you start to
| use that hardware/device, "Putin knows" where&what. So the
| argument doesn't stand.The spyware being removable is "good
| enough" only if you don't care that the government already
| knows your IMEI, location,and every other data by the time
| you get to delete the crapware.
|
| This anti-trust cat & mouse game is really getting old.The
| device should not have any pre-installed apps choosing one
| side or the other(the opposite would be to provide all
| alternatives, which is virtually impossible). In the case
| 'critical' apps are necessary for the user to do basic
| operations, the software preinstalled should be entirely
| FOSS.I fail to see a better alternative than this.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Trust me, I don't have a single illusion about Yandex or the
| government. Neither I say the solution was perfect (it's
| terrible and awkward like most regulations are). But I also
| don't have any illusions about any other company. Making it
| sound like Apple is cooperating with some nefarious plot is a
| stretch. They've been forced to back down in a fairly clear
| case. Dealing with Yandex own business ambitions or the
| government spyware or regulatory overreach are entirely
| different questions that are out of the scope of this case
| and should be solved in their specific ways.
| lotusmars wrote:
| The difference between giving data to Apple or
| Yandex/Mail.ru for Russians is this:
|
| Apple will help advertisers and spammers target you.
|
| Russian corporations will help thugs, racketeers and
| corrupt police target you and government will sell your
| data on the black market.
|
| So no, it's a question of personal security, not of simple
| annoyance.
|
| I would much prefered if Apple left Russian market and we
| had to import iPhones via backchannels. That's how bad
| privacy situation here is.
|
| There is no nefarious plot. Apple just gave us and our data
| to criminals to keep small insignificant market.
| f6v wrote:
| > Russian corporations will help thugs, racketeers and
| corrupt police target you and government will sell your
| data on the black market.
|
| There's so many feelings in this statement, but so little
| substance.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| American corporations also help thugs, racketeers, and
| police target you. Did you not recently see the scandal
| with police and repo agents (and anyone else willing witu
| the money) paying for location data of users?
|
| Besides, can you not simply uninstall or not use Yandex
| or Mail.ru?
| lotusmars wrote:
| [edited]
| monocasa wrote:
| You can buy at least Americans' fine grained location
| data, sold by corporations. The government in fact argues
| that it's not subject to fourth amendment protections
| since it's just available on the open market.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/22/22244848/us-
| intelligence-...
| lotusmars wrote:
| [edited]
| monocasa wrote:
| You don't have to use dark web here either, the data
| brokers are regular companies with physical addresses and
| everything. It's just not common because people don't
| know about it, but there are no practical or legal
| barriers.
|
| And I know about this from outside of the verge, I just
| believe in providing citations.
| kenniskrag wrote:
| Car holder information is public data. Just send a text
| message (by mail or phone) to a endpoint an receive the
| holder information. (Source:
| https://asa.ch/strassenverkehrsaemter/halterabfragen/)
| zepto wrote:
| > Apple will help advertisers and spammers target you.
|
| What are you talking about?
|
| Apple are generally known for doing the opposite.
| lootsauce wrote:
| The difference is a fantasy at least in the US. Your
| online activity even if protected by the company and not
| sold on the open market is subject to the subpoena powers
| of the state. These powers apply to all "business
| records" and have been contorted to serve as a
| justification of mass surveillance.
|
| This illustrates the how governments are using tech
| companies to do their dirty work. They are the velvet
| glove over the iron hand of the state. They conceal and
| enable that which would otherwise be an obvious
| authoritarian grab prevented by civil liberties providing
| a convenient fig leaf over over otherwise naked
| government power.
|
| I would expect this to be the case in all jurisdictions
| these companies operate in.
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| Can't you still import an American iPhone through a back
| channel without all the Russian government garbage?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Yeah, that would be probably smuggeling, with all the
| consequences. (probably a bribe in russia)
| vasachi wrote:
| Huh? No, you'd just have to pay an import fee of about
| $10.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| beckman466 wrote:
| > I don't want to use Yandex in any capacity since it's
| complicit with oppressive regime and gradually becomes part
| of it, sharing data and targeting citizen with surveillance
|
| Really? So the USA and it's allies don't spy, and aren't
| oppressive? What do you do with the information revealed by
| Snowden (about the NSA and Prism), Assange, and with the
| Crypto AG story?
|
| I'm curious if you see those those things as less severe than
| Russia's oppression/corruption?
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| Speaking first and foremost about actions against _its own
| people_ , none of the (real and troublesome) activities of
| the US government are in the same league as what the
| oppressive authoritarian Russian state is doing. The
| comparison is insulting (to the intelligence of the reader,
| first and foremost).
|
| Yandex cooperates with the Russian state, which sends
| people to (horrendous, torturous) prisons for, among other
| things, reposting a meme critical of its hard line of
| oppressing LGBT people. It assassinates domestic political
| opponents. It snoops on, disrupts and if necessary curtails
| any serious efforts at political organizing. No comparison
| can be made with the US government.
| mdpopescu wrote:
| The US government sends people to prison for owning the
| wrong plant or the wrong type of lobster. It assassinates
| political opponents - definitely foreign, likely
| domestic. It snoops on, disrupts and if necessary
| curtails any serious efforts at political organizing
| (they actually called Zuckerberg in front of Congress
| because Facebook was not censoring enough people!
| Facebook! That was freaking mind-blowing.)
|
| Yep, the difference is amazing.
| 42_ wrote:
| If you're Chinese or Russian, ignore my comment. But if
| you're an American, you need a bit of perspective.
| Literally most countries on Earth do orders of magnitude
| of worse stuff on a daily basis than US. And literally no
| other country has an egalitarian setup where anyone can
| potentially succeed. The countries that are objectively
| better than US in terms of human rights for own citizens,
| are very few (Switzerland, Nordic countries, few others
| which are either small/or have homogeneous population). I
| am stunned when I read comments suggesting that US is as
| bad or Russia or China.
| beckman466 wrote:
| > If you're Chinese or Russian, ignore my comment. But if
| you're an American, you need a bit of perspective.
| Literally most countries on Earth do orders of magnitude
| of worse stuff on a daily basis than US. And literally no
| other country has an egalitarian setup where anyone can
| potentially succeed. The countries that are objectively
| better than US in terms of human rights for own citizens,
| are very few (Switzerland, Nordic countries, few others
| which are either small/or have homogeneous population). I
| am stunned when I read comments suggesting that US is as
| bad or Russia or China.
|
| Your critique misses the vastness of the violent
| capitalist system that exists and operates today:
|
| _" Place Silicon Valley in its proper historical context
| and you see that, despite its mythology, it's far from
| unique. Rather, it fits into a pattern of rapid
| technological change which has shaped recent centuries.
| In this case, advances in information technology have
| unleashed a wave of new capabilities. Just as the
| internal combustion engine and the growth of the
| railroads created Rockefeller, and the telecommunications
| boom created AT&T, this breakthrough enabled a few well-
| placed corporations to reap the rewards. By capitalising
| on network effects, early mover advantage, and near-zero
| marginal costs of production, they have positioned
| themselves as gateways to information, giving them the
| power to extract rent from every transaction.
|
| Undergirding this state of affairs is a set of
| intellectual property rights explicitly designed to
| favour corporations. This system -- the flip side of
| globalisation -- is propagated by various trade
| agreements and global institutions at the behest of the
| nation states who benefit from it the most. It's no
| accident that Silicon Valley is a uniquely American
| phenomenon; not only does it owe its success to the
| United States' exceptionally high defence spending -- the
| source of its research funding and foundational
| technological breakthroughs -- that very military might
| is itself what implicitly secures the intellectual
| property regime."_ [1]
|
| Can you show me a critique that is more clear and true
| than this? I have quoted it a million times and that's
| because I just haven't heard a better explanation.
|
| An area where capitalist firms are doing a lot of damage
| using their IP system is in the global south:
|
| _" The possibility of a handful corporations
| monopolizing healthcare and agriculture in the developing
| world is a very real risk today. Closely associated with
| these corporations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
| (BMGF) - the richest and the most powerful philanthropic
| foundation shaping these sectors globally - aids them in
| the process of monopolization by granting huge funds to
| its network of NGOs to carry out activities which mainly
| benefit these selected corporations, in many of which the
| foundation has considerable financial stakes.
|
| Apart from making such grants, through the vehicle of
| Public Private Partnerships (PPP), the foundation also
| has been facilitating the flow of millions of dollars of
| taxpayer money into what are essentially private
| projects.
|
| The foundation also plays a crucial role in lobbying for
| stronger IPR regimes which oblige developing countries to
| grant long patent periods for drugs which are only minor
| alterations of already existing, off-patent drugs. In
| Africa, this foundation is one of the most powerful
| forces that is arm-twisting governments to gradually
| rewrite seed laws to provide patent protection for
| commercial seeds, which would eventually require
| criminalization of all non-certified seeds.
|
| [...]
|
| Far from aiding the production of cheap drugs by generic
| pharma through means such as technology transfers, the
| corporate giants, including Bill Gates' Microsoft,
| "lobbied vociferously" for acceptance of TRIPS agreement,
| which obliged member countries to agree to grant patents
| to pharmaceutical companies for a minimum period of 20
| years. Microsoft again lobbied the G8 in 2007 to
| strengthen the protection of global Intellectual Property
| Rights (IPR), which, Oxfam warned, is bound to "worsen
| the health crisis in developing countries", the New
| Internationalist reported.
|
| Stifling the development of generic pharma by lobbying
| for stronger Intellectual Property Rights regime (which,
| contrary to incentivizing innovation as is widely
| claimed, has the opposite effect as demonstrated by many
| empirical studies including one by U.S government );
| facilitating a flow of enormous subsidies into private
| projects of closely associated pharmaceutical companies,
| not only by making philanthropic grants but also by
| channelizing through GAVI alliance the public money
| granted by various states; and protecting selected
| corporations from potential competition in the market by
| locking countries receiving assistance through this
| programme into long-term commitments to buy vaccinations
| they manufacture - all appear to be a multi-pronged
| strategy to monopolize the global healthcare industry.
| And being "the single most influential voice in global
| health", Bill Gates is more than well-qualified to be at
| the helm of this machine."_ [2]
|
| People like Gates grew up with access to an immense
| amount of privileged high quality knowledge, theories and
| pedagogical material available to them - access to the
| immense inheritance of humanity's scientific
| explorations. Yet what makes them powerful is that they
| have kicked away the ladders they themselves used to
| climb up in the first place.
|
| The US and it's capitalist allies are powerful because
| they have created one big corrupt intellectual property
| system that favors the already powerful capitalists.
| There is no opting out of it. Through IP laws this system
| criminalizes sharing and turns inventions and science
| into commodities to be bought and sold. Helping ourselves
| and other humans is criminalized.
|
| If the boy geniuses of Silicon Valley are so genius, why
| do they need to turn something that is not scarce
| (knowledge/science/inventions) into something scarce, and
| lock it away as a trade secret? How can we speak about
| egalitarianism when this system is so clearly the
| opposite of that? This system is not democratic, it's a
| bourgeois run prison.
|
| > Literally most countries on Earth do orders of
| magnitude of worse stuff on a daily basis than US.
|
| The reason there is violence in other countries is
| exactly because people in these countries are deeply
| implicated and entangled in the global capitalist
| production system, which is being led and directed by
| global north capitalists.
|
| [1] https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/01/abolish-silicon-
| valley
|
| [2] https://grain.org/en/article/5910-under-the-cover-of-
| philant...
| nullifidian wrote:
| >those things as less severe than Russia's
| oppression/corruption?
|
| These things are vastly less severe than anything going on
| in Russia (am Russian). In the US there is at least due
| process, public scrutiny, and the US government doesn't
| generally torture or murder its citizens(on its soil).
| Comparing the situations in these two countries is like
| comparing current protest killings in Myanmar, and police
| shootings in the US with the words "see, in the US the
| police also kill citizens", i.e. it's dropping 99% of the
| context and of the cultural situation/differences/beliefs.
| fit2rule wrote:
| American's idea that their country is a bastion of due
| process is really a fallacy.
|
| America _regularly_ assassinates people it finds
| unsavoury without any consideration for due process
| whatsoever.
| [deleted]
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| As a Russian you could try to change your government. I don't
| really understand what people want here. Companies to ignore
| the laws made by sovereign governments? That's cyberpunk
| stuff.
| nuker wrote:
| Some companies are bigger than many sovereign countries,
| just saying
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| Do you have any evidence to call it "a backdoor deal"? Please
| stick to the facts.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| No clear evidence, sorry, you're right. It's only a rumor
| that is circulating everywhere, I should have made this clear
| but only realized this now. Another poster above/below noted
| that it might have been a misunderstanding of the law by
| Samsung, according to Yandex CEO. Which is also possible of
| course. (nonetheless, they still shipped unremovable software
| in a firmware update)
| 3np wrote:
| There's so much uninstallable malware on Samsung Galaxy
| phones that they probably did it of sheer habit.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > What's even funnier is that Apple threatened to withdraw from
| the russian market rather than having to do this, so the
| question is who's the real bad guy here
|
| Problem is that Apple for years claims moral high ground, while
| they're happily cooperating with authoritarian governments
| around the world. They can claim moral high ground if they
| leave after threatening, not just for threatening.
|
| You have to put your money where your mouth is. Like Facebook
| did with China (not saying they have moral high ground, but
| that's an example of company losing tons of profits and helping
| competition grow, to avoid bending to authoritarian
| government).
| ksec wrote:
| Exactly. I have been saying Apple is now walking on the same
| path as Google once did. Their "Do No Evil" line.
|
| Had Apple never claimed moral high ground, they would then
| have the benefit of doubt. And increasingly there are more
| and more evidence their words and actions differs.
| tarsinge wrote:
| From what I remember Apple had the philosophy caring about
| their customer, which in 2021 encompass security and data
| protection. But it's unrelated to banning apps and freedom of
| speech. They are compliant with local regulations the same as
| a bank service, a wifi router or any manufactured product
| have to be compliant. So I would say it's more of a recent
| marketing problem, it's true they care about customers, but
| they go too far as saying they are human rights advocates
| (and also their focus on services put them in a more
| difficult position like Google or Facebook which IMHO they
| were not before as a product company).
| ProAm wrote:
| Apple already did it [1] "Apple bent its rules for Russia--and
| other countries will take note"
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/apple-bent-its-
| rules...
| oap_bram wrote:
| I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty
| good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that
| helped the Third Reich. Perhaps it's time to want a different
| underlying system that wouldn't have a bottomline for profit
| maximization? idk
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into generic ideological
| arguments. It just leads to tedious, lame, and nasty flamewar--
| always the same--and those are off topic here.
|
| It's quite incredible how bad the internet is at discussing
| this stuff thoughtfully. It's clearly not the medium for it. It
| bonds with all its failure modes (e.g. snark, screaming, and
| paranoia) into one hell of a compound. We're trying for
| something different on HN, and for that to work we need users
| to be aware of this and not go there.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| La1n wrote:
| Doesn't this thread already pose an ideological argument
| (e.g. country x and y are authoritarian/bad, while country z
| isn't)?
|
| I personally find it really hard to refrain from commenting
| when there is a very once sided view presented on a front-
| page topic.
|
| The issue I have is that some topics feel like they are
| either flamewar or a one-sided view where people feel like
| they can't comment because going against that view might
| start a flamewar. Neither promote curiosity
|
| edit: My comment isn't necessarily connected to that of
| parent, but more to your reply
| dang wrote:
| No one is asked to refrain from commenting, but everyone is
| asked to comment within HN's guidelines, which call for
| respectful, curious conversation, avoiding flamebait,
| political/ideological/national battle, name-calling,
| fulmination, snark, and other internet failure modes:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. It's that
| simple--in theory. In practice it is not so easy.
|
| People sometimes imagine that the rules say that political
| threads are off topic, but that's not so at all. Stories
| with political overlap are inevitable here, and not a bad
| thing (as long as they don't get too dominant in the
| overall mix). They only become a bad thing when people
| descend into name-calling, flamewar, and the rest of the
| above list.
|
| Does that make sense? If not, there are many past
| explanations here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&pa
| ge=0&prefix=false&so.... Some good threads to start with
| might be https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 and
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902396. If you or
| anyone still has a question that hasn't been answered
| there, I'd like to know what it is, and if you know a
| better way for HN to relate to political topics while
| fulfilling its mandate of curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com
| /?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), I'd _really_
| like to know what it is. Just please familiarize yourself
| with the past material first, because if it 's something
| simple like "just ban politics" or "just allow everything",
| I've answered many times already why it won't work.
| Leary wrote:
| This, this whole thread is both generic and ideological.
| dang wrote:
| I wouldn't say that about the OP. It obviously has
| political overlap, but it's not generic-ideological. That
| would be more like "all corporations always do what
| authoritarian governments say"--yet even such an article
| could conceivably be on topic here if it were
| substantive, went deeply into specific evidence, and
| wasn't primarily flamebait. What we don't want as an
| initial condition for a thread here is the unsubstantive
| sort of ideological article that hurls flameballs of
| snarky rhetoric.
|
| After that, it's the commenters' duty not to take thread
| further into flamewar, such as with generic ideological
| rhetoric. I know it's not easy but it's not as if the
| principle is hard to understand.
| arcticbull wrote:
| IMO the best example is Chiquita -- they conspired with the CIA
| to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala
| to secure their banana fields against the "godless communists."
| Naturally, they left Guatemala with a right-wing dictatorship.
| This kicked off a 46 year long civil war and the fallout has
| directly contributed to the migrant crisis at the border. They
| called it Operation PBSuccess. [1]
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZtAKHnqkf4
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| The phrase "Banana Republic" is entirely due to
| Chiquita/United Fruit Company.
|
| God bless America?
|
| (Also, wtf, Banana Republic is now an American fashion brand?
| Jesus Christ, way to have zero insight)
|
| Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for
| mentioning facts.
|
| Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible hand" idealists
| feelings? Who knows.
| ic0n0cl4st wrote:
| > Once again, really unsure why you're being downvoted for
| mentioning facts. > Are you perhaps hurting some "invisible
| hand" idealists feelings? Who knows.
|
| I've noticed that _anything_ which questions capitalism,
| especially American capitalism gets rapidly downvoted.
| There seems to be a group of people, possibly even a bot
| network, which downvotes any and all such criticism.
|
| Randian ovjectivists have an outsized representation inside
| of YC as well as the HN community at large.
|
| I mean, why wouldn't they? In a way YC is a successful cult
| which worships ar the alter of prosperity.
| dang wrote:
| > I've noticed that _anything_
|
| You're noticing, and then overgeneralizing, the data
| points you dislike (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all
| &page=0&prefix=false&qu...). The overgeneralization comes
| because you don't notice (or underemphasize) the data
| points that don't make you angry. This is classic sample
| bias, as I believe I've pointed out to you under a
| different username in the past.
|
| Once people arrive at a spurious generalization like
| this, they imagine grandiose and sinister explanations
| for it. But the truth is quite boring: the community is
| divided the same way society at large is divided, the
| same way any large-enough population sample is. The only
| way HN is different is that we try to stop people from
| bashing each other with rhetorical two-by-fours about it.
| With limited success.
|
| Since you've continued to post flamewar comments and
| ignore our requests to stop, I've banned this account.
| Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines
| with. For someone who purports to care about community,
| that's incongruent.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| > Just look at the companies that still exist today that helped
| the Third Reich.
|
| How dare they!
| 2421n wrote:
| You think it's funny or something that these companies were
| allowed to go unchecked?
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Here's a fun bit from an attempt to hold to account IG
| Farben, manufacturers of Zkylon B.
|
| > All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early
| release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships
| and other positions in post-war companies, and some were
| awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.
| liberatethemass wrote:
| Lol, so does communism, monarchy, or when religion and politics
| merge (iran, ottoman empire etc).
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > when religion and politics merge (iran, ottoman empire
| etc).
|
| ...the GOP, etc.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I'm keen on your examples from Iran. Was it the time that the
| British asked the CIA to depose the democratically elected
| Prime Minister of Iran, and reinstall the Shah, for the
| benefit of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now a subsidiary of
| BP)?
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| No, I think it was the time a civil unrest threw the Shah
| and put the ayatollahs in power with the help of the Soviet
| Union (which is suspiciously absent from your remarks) and
| now their women face jail for not wearing the veil or their
| homosexuals are hung by a crane
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Well, yep, the Ayatollahs and Soviets were "suspiciously"
| absent from my remarks because I was referring to the
| British-American coup of 1953, not the Islamic Revolution
| of 1979.
|
| Not sure why you find it suspicious that I wouldn't label
| actors who didn't really come on stage for 26 years, and
| who came to prominence because of the unpopularity of the
| Padishah installed at the behest of American and British
| corporate interests.
|
| In fact, they were entirely irrelevant. Why did you feel
| the need to invoke them?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Both examples fit (one is monarchy--a stage managed
| abortive coup to justify an autocoup (the CIA directing
| _both_ ) by which a constitutional monarchy became a
| dictatorial one--the other a politics/religion merger.)
|
| If you are describing the problem the way it has upthread
| but only pointing to one or the other of the Iranian
| examples, it's pretty obviously being selective for
| dishonest purposes.
| ic0n0cl4st wrote:
| Be careful. Here in HN it is not allowed to look at
| Iran's situation objectively or holistically. It is
| allowable to spew hatred at Iran. Any discussion of the
| western meddling which destabilized Iran, embargoes which
| starves Iranians or the use of Iran as a political red
| herring is a hellbannable offense. (I will most probably
| be hellbanned for this comment).
|
| Edit: Told ya. @dang has decreed thou shalt not criticize
| capitalism and thou shalt not criticize american
| capitalism.
| dang wrote:
| We've banned accounts for "spewing hatred at Iran" (and
| other countries). You shouldn't falsely accuse people,
| let alone make up grave charges like hating a great
| people (or any people).
|
| You have little credibility asking for "objective and
| holistic" discussion when your accounts routinely post
| falsehoods, behave viciously, and foster flamewars. HN's
| rules are designed specifically to support the kind of
| discussion you criticize others for not having, and
| you're breaking those rules as consistently as anyone
| here.
|
| There's no problem with thoughtful criticism. The problem
| is that when people on the internet argue about
| capitalism, socialism, and other big generic topics like
| that, discussions quickly turn repetitive and nasty. It's
| _that_ which we don 't want, because it's destructive of
| curious conversation, so we ask people not to do it and
| ban them if they ignore our requests.
|
| We moderate the same way regardless of which direction
| the bashing is going. If you looked at this objectively,
| that would be obvious to you, but ideologues of whatever
| flavor only look at half the data--the half (or whatever
| the percentage is) which supports their side. Then they
| make up monsters based on it ("dang has decreed thou
| shalt not criticize capitalism!!") That part is easy,
| since any data which contradicts it has been excluded.
| What no one wants to reckon with is that their enemies on
| the other side have exactly the same picture--they just
| think the mods are secretly working for _you_ and out to
| get _them_.
|
| Since you don't want to use HN as intended and are
| ignoring our requests to follow the rules, I've banned
| the account. Please don't create accounts to break HN's
| rules with. More at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26648613.
| oap_bram wrote:
| I didn't imply a solution, but I assume we can come up with
| one that satisfies your worries and mine
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| Not sure why you've been downvoted, the list of complicit orgs
| is long.
|
| IBM, takes pride of place for their tabulation machines. Ford,
| and GM, for converting their German subsidiary factories to
| wartime usages, while declining to do the same in the USA.
| Nevermind Henry Ford's proclivity for funding anti-semitism.
| Then of course, all the German manufacturers of note. Krupp,
| Daimler, IG Farben, Hugo Boss...
|
| Actually, probably just quicker to link to this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_...
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > I mean capitalism goes together with authoritarianism pretty
| good. Just look at the companies that still exist today that
| helped the Third Reich.
|
| The above sentence makes no sense:
|
| 1) The Third Reich no longer exists.
|
| 2) I think you're implying that companies that operated under
| the Third Reich should be punished, but that is orthogonal to
| capitalism and the Third Reich.
|
| It actually appears that you don't understand what the words
| "capitalism" and "authoritarianism" mean.
|
| But since you brought it up, note that the current owners of
| those companies are largely the grandchildren of Nazis (no
| exaggeration.) Hope that made your day! :)
| paulcarroty wrote:
| Well, I'm not surprised - Belarus and China Apple experience was
| discussed on HN widely.
| blue_box wrote:
| So even US and EU can't deal with Authoritarian Governments and
| they are closing their eyes, you are expecting Apple to do that?
|
| I wondering when we are going to start critize our governments
| before critizing the companies. You know, they are the ones that
| make law.
| simion314 wrote:
| I have an issue with hypocrisy, like maybe you are a gay CEO or
| promote yourself as LGBT friend , respecting of women equality
| and at the same time kiss the ass to some governments that
| would stone you to death if they could get their hand on you.
|
| When an individual is promoting itself as a green tree lover
| person on social media to score points and then you find he is
| a fake because money is more important, then IMO is fair to
| call on the hypocrisy/facade.
|
| from the scandal where the whole world found that Apple tracks
| you each time you open an app I personally concluded that
| privacy is an after-thought at Apple. The entire thing would
| have been designed different if the developers at Apple were
| competent and at the same time care for privacy (so either they
| don't care about privacy or they are incompetent but care a
| lot)
| cyrksoft wrote:
| And you are the one voting for them. A government isn't an
| isolated entity, people vote for them in democratic countries.
|
| However, it's much easier for people to vote with their wallets
| in their everyday life (for ex. by buying from companies with
| certain environmental policies or labour policies) than to
| expect governments to change.
|
| You can choose to buy a phone or computer that is less involved
| in this type of behaviours.
| fsflover wrote:
| > it's much easier for people to vote with their wallets in
| their everyday life
|
| Except if you deal with a mono-/duopoly.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| What kind of phone would that be?
| can16358p wrote:
| While these phones exist, they are practically not much of
| a use for 99% of the population as many of the basic apps
| aren't available.
| Angostura wrote:
| What would you vote for? A complete, immediate cessation of
| economic activity involving mainland China?
| ryandrake wrote:
| Unfortunately, no electable party offers this choice, at
| least in the USA. Both major parties pay the bare minimum
| lip service to opposing authoritarian regimes, but neither
| of them actually do anything substantial.
|
| EDIT: That said, it's hard for a country to unilaterally
| effect change in another sovereign country without going to
| war. Hell, how many countries embargo North Korea and it
| has no effect?
| threeseed wrote:
| US and EU are making up for lost time with sanctions imposed on
| Chinese companies and individuals.
|
| Pretty much all they can do short of starting a war.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The USA (possinly EU as well, I havent followed the news on
| this) are also actively supporting other extremely repressive
| regimes - most notably and uncontroversially, Saudi Arabia.
| They have even all but endorsed Saudi Arabia's murder of an
| American journalist on foreign soil (they have officially
| condemned it, but have taken 0 measures beyond a
| declaration).
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| What do you want them to do? Start a war?
| ISL wrote:
| Link fairly-prosecuting the perpetrators of Khashoggi's
| murder to the continuation of US military aid?
| threeseed wrote:
| This is completely false.
|
| US government imposed sanctions on 17 Saudi officials who
| were connected with the killing.
|
| They couldn't punish Prince Mohammed bin Salman because he
| is expected to be King at some point soon which means any
| sanctions would be nonsensical. How does a travel ban for
| example work against the leader of any country let alone an
| (unfortunate) ally.
|
| There simply isn't any good options for punishing world
| leaders.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| They banned Mugabe.[1]
|
| [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1836935.stm
| trasz wrote:
| Erm, no. A single JDAM would send much stronger signal.
| Of course it would bring repercussions, and that is the
| reason for purely symbolic actions taken instead: USA
| won't do anything that could hamper their military
| influence in region.
| darkwater wrote:
| When the company we are talking about has the wealth and power
| of a nation, well, we have the right to criticize it. Also, we
| are able to criticize both governments and companies at the
| same time, with the same effort.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| What makes you think that wealth gives you power of a nation?
| Unless Apple starts making its own laws, hire or train its
| own army, it is just another cow for the government.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Apple has the power of a government? Like with sovereign
| territory, and army, and a seat in the UN?
| darkwater wrote:
| Nope, but it has lobby powers in many governments which is
| maybe even scarier since not everybody realizes that.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Oh, ok, so no actual government powers, just the ability
| to petition for policies that suit them, subject to
| competing interests having their say, with all decisions
| ultimately made by folks that don't work for Apple.
|
| Just say you don't like them.
| roenxi wrote:
| It is reasonably likely that, in a pinch, the US uses iPhones to
| target missile strikes. There is no way the iPhone isn't being
| used in cooperation with the NSA spying program either.
|
| It isn't new for corporations to cooperate with the ugly parts of
| government. I don't really understand why Apple is being singled
| out here. They are better than average because at least their
| abuses are fairly obvious and they don't make plays to control
| people's data like certain other companies.
| ismaildonmez wrote:
| It's easy to pick on Apple, when you don't know the history of
| these political issues. Not picking on Red Hat, but because I
| know this from the first hand it was 18 years ago that they
| removed the Taiwanese flag from KDE3 control center:
| https://redhat-list.redhat.narkive.com/b3p8HQaa/bug-70235
|
| Apple is not a government, it's a business. They'll either have
| to obey the local laws or they'll lose business.
|
| While we are here, checkout how Google Maps handles these issues:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/14/google-...
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| > Apple is not a government
|
| It is a de facto government with assets _and_ income that dwarf
| most U.S. states, as well as most foreign countries and many
| multinational companies.
|
| Calling their legal compliance obedient is a cruel disservice
| to the facts of their constant political maneuvering.
| _jal wrote:
| It is not a government, de facto or otherwise.
|
| Apple does not have tax authority over you.
|
| Apple does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force
| in any geographic region.
|
| Apple does not pass or enforce laws or have citizens.
|
| It is big and rich and powerful, and like all big and rich
| things with that much reach, literally cannot do anything
| without making someone angry.
|
| This does not make it a government, and pretending it is one
| is a silly distraction from holding it to account when it
| does something bad.
| jolux wrote:
| Corporations are not "de facto" governments just because
| they're large and profitable. They may have governance
| structure within themselves, but they don't have a monopoly
| on the use of force anywhere, they don't tax, and they're not
| sovereign. Moreover, what de jure government do they
| functionally supersede in the places where they're the de
| facto government? This is a tortured argument.
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| From an assets and income standpoint, maybe, but they're not
| a _de facto_ government unless they have sovereignty, and
| they don't. Once they can decide on which wars to start with
| which countries, maybe we can talk then.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Maybe when wars are not fought at the behest and for the
| benefit of the wealthy we can say they are not a de facto
| government.
| airstrike wrote:
| Money alone does not a government make.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| That's a rather naive thing to say about the wealthiest
| corporation in the world. I can't deny the overwhelming
| influence of money on governments so easily.
| airstrike wrote:
| Influence on governments is really not at all comparable
| to _being_ a government.
| boringg wrote:
| You should have said, Apple has the same amount of POWER as
| some governments. That would be more appropriate.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > It is a de facto government
|
| I can't understand why you'd think that.
|
| What characteristics of a government do you think it has?
| Assets and income? A government is something that 'governs',
| not something that has assets and income.
| tamasnet wrote:
| > It is a de facto government
|
| Say you're a US citizen. You can choose not to buy an Apple
| product. You cannot chose to not pay your taxes.
|
| This is just one of many distinctions between a government
| and a corporation.
| jjcon wrote:
| >You cannot chose to not pay your taxes.
|
| But you can move to another state/country. They aren't
| claiming it is apples to apples but claiming apples to
| oranges is disingenuous at best.
| boringg wrote:
| I think what they are trying to equate, and have done
| that poorly, is that Apple has equivalent POWER to some
| governments. However it is functionally NOT A government
| and not even close - their mandates, structures and most
| everything are completely at odds.
| kelnos wrote:
| Moving to another state or country because you don't like
| their taxes is a vastly different response than refusing
| to buy a phone because you don't like the manufacturer's
| stance on human rights.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| Is there any limit, in your opinion, to what a company should
| willingly comply with from a government?
| kypro wrote:
| I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents.
| It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's
| impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply
| acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies
| willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage
| over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with
| authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for
| cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that
| does those things will take its place.
|
| The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the
| incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of
| course is that this could then make the economy as a whole
| uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take
| action.
|
| Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has
| probably waited too long to take action at this point. This
| would have been easier in the past, but now China has become
| so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being
| so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard
| to imagine any significant business or political intervention
| happening.
|
| In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future
| when China is the core market for most multinational
| companies political intervention basically becomes
| impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest
| market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).
| avianlyric wrote:
| Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands
| are valid within the eyes of local law.
|
| To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist
| above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it's
| inconvenient. I don't think that's a precedent you want to
| set.
|
| With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to
| do business in countries that don't uphold the same standards
| as the US. I would argue a better place to have that
| conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply
| export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on
| the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies.
|
| I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with
| China tied to their human rights violations. But don't think
| right approach is campaigning individual companies.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| > To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should
| exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it's
| inconvenient.
|
| This is a straw man. Most people recognize a company can't
| ignore Chinese law and do business in China.
| morbicer wrote:
| so it's fine to do business with countries that are
| literally committing genocide? And profit from it?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in
| _...
|
| Either a company has some sort of conscience or not. I know
| that companies are created to make profit but there is a
| certain boundary after which it's fair that they are under
| public scrutiny, even if there is no government embargo on
| China.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| Doing business with someone is not the same as condoning
| their actions. You 100% buy things every day from
| companies whose actions you disagree with.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| So its fine to be "only following orders", as long as you
| get a payday?
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, but my personal ability to encourage change through
| a boycott is limited. A large company's ability is orders
| of magnitude higher. And often I don't have much choice
| what company I buy things from based on what's available,
| and even when I do, they all often have similar (or
| different, but just as bad) problems.
|
| But this goes into a bit of a policy/morality/philosophy
| question: should companies have high moral standards, and
| give up market share in places where they are unable to
| adhere to those standards? The stock capitalist answer is
| probably "no, gaining market share and increasing profits
| is more important". Personally I think that's a
| fundamental problem with capitalism.
| phnofive wrote:
| > I don't think that's a president you want to set.
|
| Typo?
| avianlyric wrote:
| Yeah, that and the incredibly unhelpful
| spellcheck/autocorrect in iOS.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Apple lobbying against Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act in
| the United States goes beyond that.
| throwawayfire wrote:
| One could argue this to be evidence that Apple is willing to
| disagree with an authoritarian government.
| simonh wrote:
| This is gross misrepresentation. They did not lobby against
| it, they lobbied for some changes including being clearer and
| more specific about which Chinese organisations were covered.
| They did ask for some deadlines to be extended but do not
| oppose the law. Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy,
| polices it's supply chain and has excluded suppliers for
| violations. Can you provide any examples of another company
| doing more?
| adolph wrote:
| > Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy
|
| I'm not certain what "strong" means here. If it meant
| principled or effective they wouldn't need deadlines
| extended because they would already not be slavery
| adjacent.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Let me clarify. Apple wants to water down legislation so
| that it has no consequences, and can't be effectively
| enforced.
|
| (1) Apple publicly supports everything in the bill. That's
| their PR.
|
| (2) Apple wants to water down key provisions of the bill,
| which would hold U.S. companies accountable for using
| Uighur forced labor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technol
| ogy/2020/11/20/apple-u...
|
| >"What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not
| have any real consequences,"
|
| The bill is not about Apple. If Apple is doing everything
| right, their costs may increase marginally. The bill would
| force US companies that don't have as good human rights
| records to comply. Apple lobbying against the bill is
| enabling this.
|
| Summary: Apple wants to save little money. Result of that
| would be that unethical US based companies could continue
| their unethical business in China.
| simonh wrote:
| I think you're completely misunderstanding the incentives
| for Apple here. The theory is they don't want to deal
| with doing anything about forced labour, because evil,
| therefore their changes must be to water down the
| legislation.
|
| That's not the situation though. They already have a
| forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and
| have even already dumped suppliers for violating these
| policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just
| to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The
| reason is because then everybody else would also have to
| do what Apple already does, and face the costs and
| accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation
| is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive
| moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.
| nabla9 wrote:
| >Their actual proposed changes really are just to make
| the legislation clearer and more enforceable.
|
| Any source for that.
| finnthehuman wrote:
| >Their actual proposed changes really are just to make
| the legislation clearer and more enforceable.
|
| Link? The reports I've seen (like the WaPo article above)
| are about what Apple has requested in closed door
| meetings.
|
| I don't know whose word I trust less, anonymous
| congressional staffers talking to the post, or the pr
| department of the richest company in the world.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Which governments are "bad"? Who gets to make that decision?
|
| The UK government is defying international law in the Chagos
| Islands and has broken its treaty with the EU over checks to/from
| N. Ireland. Does that make it a "bad" government that private
| companies should not do business with? If the UK demands that an
| app is withdrawn from the app store, or that private
| communications should be turned over to government agents with no
| justification, should a private business refuse to do that? The
| same arguments can be made for the USA (as the article does).
|
| People generally get the government they deserve. If a country is
| authoritarian, then it's up to the people of that country to deal
| with that problem, not private companies. China's government is
| representative of the wishes of its people, and if it's not then
| China's people will deal with that.
|
| Contrast that with Myanmar: the democratically elected government
| has been overthrown by the military, who are in the process of
| killing anyone who protests about it. This is clearly different.
| There can clearly be no international co-operation with this
| regime, because it's obviously been taken over by bad people.
| There should be international outrage over this, and action from
| the international diplomatic community - part of which should be
| guidance to private companies about whether to co-operate with
| the military regime.
| tazjin wrote:
| Also, "authoritarian" is defined as:
|
| > favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the
| expense of personal freedom
|
| This currently describes a lot of European countries. The
| proponents will make the argument that this is only "temporary
| authoritarianism" in the pursuit of "safety", but we've seen
| how that works out before.
| simonh wrote:
| Your attitude to Myanmar is directly at odds with your
| criticism that people deserve the government they get. There's
| no difference between what the junta in Myanmar is doing now
| and what the CCP did to reformist protesters in Tiananmen
| Square. You can't say the Chinese people deserve that, but the
| people of Myanmar don't. That's completely inconsistent.
| Belarus is still under the control of an autocratic dictator
| despite many months of protests, which will almost certainly
| fail. Do the people of Belarus deserve to lose?
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| This is a good point. I would say there is a difference of
| degree, but it's very debatable.
|
| My stance has been heavily influenced by my experience living
| in Cambodia. They have an authoritarian government. But they
| have also an authoritarian culture. Attempts to create a
| democratic government there haven't failed because the regime
| are a bunch of bastards (they are, but that's not the point),
| but because the people generally haven't supported it. Part
| of this, I'm sure, is their traumatic experience with the
| Khmer Rouge. I see so many parallels with what's going on
| with Myanmar. I don't see so many parallels with what's going
| on in China.
|
| Can we measure the legitimacy of a government by the number
| of protesters it has killed? Seems like a better measure that
| "compatibility with Western economic interests" which seems
| to be the current measure.
| sanxiyn wrote:
| I am from South Korea. This is the same "culture" bullshit
| argued about South Korea 30 years ago. Kim Dae Jung who
| dedicated his life to democracy in South Korea and who went
| on to be the first president elected from the opposition
| wrote a through rebuttal in 1994. Go read it.
|
| Is Culture Destiny? The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic
| Values (Kim Dae Jung, 1994)
|
| He went on to "write" an even better rebuttal by being
| elected in 1998 and building the foundation of South Korea
| as a fully functioning democracy in his term. Now the
| result speaks for itself.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I'll dig it up and read it, thanks for the pointer.
|
| I heard this from several Khmer acquaintances - they're
| fed up of Westerners coming to Cambodia and trying to
| enforce Western ideas of democracy and "freedom" on them.
| There are a shit-tonne of White Saviours running around
| Phnom Penh trying to "save" Cambodia, so I totally get
| this.
|
| A home-grown idea of Cambodian democracy, from Khmer
| people who are actually interested in what Khmer
| democracy would look like, is a totally different thing.
| If that's what happened in South Korea, then that's
| fantastic.
| reader_mode wrote:
| This relativism is ridiculous. As much as western
| governments have their own problems - are you seriously
| going to pretend individuals are protected similarly
| between China and EU or US ?
| FpUser wrote:
| What protection? And from what angle? Sure western
| governments do treat their own citizens better
| comparatively. But at the same time as soon as some
| country starts refusing to dance their tune they'd be
| more than happy to "democratize" it into oblivion and
| ruin with the bombing being cherry on top. They're also
| happy to prop and support murderous regimes when it suits
| their overall goals.
|
| Outsider does not give a shit how well western countries
| treat their own citizens. If one comes home and starts
| picking up bits and pieces of their family members in the
| rubble that used to be their house they might hold very
| different opinion.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| That's not what I'm saying.
|
| I'm saying the Chinese people have the right to determine
| what government they should have. No-one else gets to
| decide that for them.
|
| But saying that one government is "better" than another
| can be seen as imposing your standards of "better" on
| another culture. Especially if you choose to ignore some
| criteria and select others - the USA has by far the
| highest percentage of its population in prison in the
| entire world[0], so yes you can make a serious claim that
| China "protects its citizens" better than the USA.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_in
| carcera...
| PeterisP wrote:
| The argument that local people have the right to
| determine what government they should have is true but a
| bit irrelevant in cases when they do not have the
| practical ability to do so. For example, Hong Kong; for
| example, another comment above who responded to a
| Russian's comment with "As a Russian you could try to
| change your government." which is laughable knowing the
| fate of opposition organizers. Asserting that "the people
| of X alone have the right to determine what government
| they should have" implies "the current government of X is
| what X should have" if and only if that government was
| democratically elected in fair elections.
|
| As you say, "no-one else gets to decide that for them" -
| which also includes all the non-democratic regimes
| currently clinging to power after losing the consent of
| the governed. For example, look at Belarus - other
| countries don't have the right to unilaterally determine
| what government Belarusians should have, but, crucially,
| Lukashenka also does not have that right, he does not get
| to decide that for them.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| Look, I get this. I'm not saying it's not a little bit
| tricky to depose a despot once he's got his grip on
| power.
|
| But I see Westerners go to places that are culturally
| different, and ignore all those differences, and assume
| that the only reason the government isn't "non-
| authoritarian" is because the population need help
| deposing a despot. Sometimes it's not that. In Myanmar it
| is totally that, and we should be doing something,
| because the army are shooting civilians every day. In
| Cambodia at the moment, not. In China, probably not.
|
| In Cambodia I was a CEO. Khmer culture means that you
| never contradict your boss. I had some really candid
| conversations with colleagues that I knew well, and who
| knew me well, I'd call them friends. They would still
| never contradict me, even if they knew I was wrong, and
| knew that I knew I was wrong. It's a different culture.
| You do not question authority there. That's not because
| authority will punish you, but because (as far as I get
| it as an outsider) social harmony depends on social
| stratification, and social stratification means not
| questioning those above you. It all sounds problematic to
| westerners, who go there and try and impose western ideas
| of justice, free thought and free speech. But they just
| come off as White Saviours, tone deaf to thousands of
| years of Khmer culture.
|
| In Cambodia all this lead to the Khmer Rouge and a
| genocide. I see lots of parallels with what's happening
| in Myanmar. I think there comes a point where we do have
| to step in and say "I know you are an authoritarian
| culture, but this is too far, you're shooting civilians".
| Don't forget, this is Myanmar people enlisted in the
| military who are shooting other Myanmar people. The same
| was true in Cambodia - a lot of the trauma of the
| genocide was "how could we do this to ourselves?". It's a
| very complex situation. There's a huge difference between
| this and China.
|
| I don't know enough about the situation in Belarus to
| comment. I don't trust Western media enough to present an
| unbiased view of it, and I don't know any Belarus folks
| to give me their view. I'd like to go visit - I hear it's
| beautiful there. But pandemic.
| fsloth wrote:
| I think the topic was overall quality of governance. This
| affects the lives of _all_ citizens, not just those in
| the political opposition. There is quite large variance
| in the capability to govern with CCP and Tatmadaw.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I don't think GP has made any such claim.
|
| I think really all they've said is that different
| countries has different cultures, and that in turn result
| in different types of government being acceptable.
|
| I'm not going to get involved in the details here,
| because there are many countries and governments out
| there, and everyone has different views on which is
| "best".
| fsloth wrote:
| We should also remember that we _are_ discussing a
| different civilization to that of the 'western' sphere.
|
| Not in the orientalist sense of being incomprehensible, but
| by just by understanding the political history and hence
| the intuitive sensibilities of what is understood to be a
| just way of running a government being quite different.
|
| This is not to claim democracy would not fit all, but
| rather, it is quite a different thing to introduce it to an
| environment which already accepts as its philosophical
| inheritance the democracy of Athens, the Republic of Rome,
| the Magna Carta, and so on, to one for whom these are
| exotic and foreign historical references.
|
| And frankly, a stable government - no matter how legalistic
| or authoritarian - is almost always better than no
| government at all (ref. all the areas with failed states
| and ruled by warlords).
|
| In a political environment that has never known anything
| but authoritarian rule, it is actually quite safe bet that
| any destabilizing forces are not trying to "improve peoples
| lives" but actually just to replace the existing
| authoritarian power structure with a one of their own.
|
| So... while mistreating demonstrator is reprhensible ...
| the situation is not necessarily about "good v.s bad" but
| actually about "stability vs. chaos" and in both situations
| there are losers - only in the "chaos" case the number of
| losers is larger.
| sanxiyn wrote:
| I will just quote from Kim Dae Jung which I mentioned
| elsewhere.
|
| "The proper way to cure the ills of industrial societies
| is not to impose the terror of a police state but to
| emphasize ethical education, give high regard to
| spiritual values, and promote high standards in culture
| and the arts."
|
| So no, authoritarian government does not lead to
| stability and democratic government does not lead to
| chaos. You get stability by educating the next generation
| and promoting the culture.
| fsloth wrote:
| I did not claim democratic government leads to chaos, but
| rather the _absence_ of government that does. Perhaps I
| am not familiar with all the discussions about this topic
| (I believe democratic governance is the best possible but
| have not experienced non-democratic societies so have
| strong cultural bias).
|
| That's a beautiful quote.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I totally agree with that - that it begins with
| education.
|
| Cambodian education at the moment is corrupt. You bribe
| the educator to get into a course. You bribe the examiner
| to pass an exam. If your family is rich enough, you never
| need to even attend a class.
|
| Changing this is not going to be possible from outside.
| The Khmer people will need to want to change. I don't
| think that's true at the moment. I hope they'll get it
| eventually.
| fsloth wrote:
| You can't really compare CCP with the likes of Tatmadaw or
| Lukashenko's clique. While all of them are authoritarian, the
| quality of their governance is quite different.
|
| The difference with CCP and Tatmadaw (Myanmar army) generals,
| is that the CCP actually understands how to govern.
|
| Tatmadaw is making things objectively worse for everyone
| economically, while CCP has succeeded in improving the lives
| of Chinese people. (Yes, and it is authoritarian and
| suppresses ethnic minorities but these qualities do not
| signify it as _inept_ ).
|
| Or in DD terms, Tatmadaw is borderline chaotic evil while CCP
| is lawful evil.
| Fricken wrote:
| Why do people say you can't compare xertain things right
| before comparing them?
| fsloth wrote:
| Huh - my Strunk & White-fu is rusty. "Obviously" I meant
| - 'As a ruler Tatmadaw is in many ways much more inept
| than CCP and thus more harmfull to it's citizens'.
| simonh wrote:
| The point in contention was legitimacy, not competence. The
| Myanmar Army is unquestionably making things better for
| themselves, their families and their commercial interests.
| The CCP is very efficient at expunging non-Han regional
| cultures, suppressing dissent and the institutionalising
| the rape of minority women, among other things. In both
| cases they are only interested in pursuing selfish goals.
|
| Chaotic Evil is selfish anarchy. The Tatmadaw doesn't want
| anarchy, they want highly regularised, conformant
| subservience to their rules. If anything they find
| democracy too chaotic for them to stomach.
| BBC-vs-neolibs wrote:
| CCP is borderline lawful evil, too.
|
| After all, their laws means nothing without without a nod
| and wink from the CCP. China is not a nation of laws.
|
| Edit: fsloth nailed it below
| FpUser wrote:
| >"After all, their laws means nothing without without a
| nod"
|
| Let's say there is a trial in regards to some schmuk
| killing his neighbor over some argument. Do you think
| that Mr. Xi are hawking over judges shoulder making sure
| the outcome is proper? I have a news for you - he is not.
| Or look at this case for example:
| https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/asia/gallery/china-nail-
| house... . Where do you see big hairy paw of CCP?
|
| I am pretty sure if outcome of some particular case
| really threatens CCP they'll interfere. But in the course
| of a normal life their laws do work.
|
| >"China is not a nation of laws."
|
| They are, just not your laws.
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for using HN primarily for
| political and nationalistic battle, which is against the
| rules here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| Creating accounts to break HN's rules will eventually get
| your main account banned as well, so please don't.
| BBC-vs-neolibs wrote:
| Wow, that's a stretch. "Primarily." I have a handful of
| comments. This is my main account. Ban away. Your loss.
| fsloth wrote:
| Lawful evil in the context of DD does not mean "law
| abiding".
|
| "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants
| within the limits of his code of conduct without regard
| for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and
| order but not about freedom, dignity or life. He plays by
| the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is
| comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is
| willing to serve."
|
| I find this characterization quite fitting with the worst
| aspects of CCP rule.
|
| Of course "order over human rights" is part of legalism
| as a framework for governance so labeling it as "evil"
| may or may not be culturally insensitive.
| AniseAbyss wrote:
| If a dictatorship still has control of the military clearly
| its not as unpopular as Western media likes to portray.
|
| The soldiers in Myanmar shooting protestors are also Myanmar
| citizens after all- an inconvenient truth nobody ever brings
| up in their news reports.
| bb123 wrote:
| Well the U.K. government is a democratically elected one for a
| start. On the Northern Ireland border, wasn't it the EU that
| that unilaterally broke the protocol by invoking article 16
| without even checking with Ireland? My point is that
| governments do things that anger other countries all the time.
| That doesn't make them a bad government, that's just politics.
| There is however a clear and significant difference between a
| democratically elected government and an authoritarian regime.
| lucian1900 wrote:
| The UK is a literal kingdom with a first past the post voting
| system and a media dominated by Tories (including the BBC).
| Recently they're trying to ban all protest while the police
| is beating up those of us that resist.
|
| China's elected national congress that includes easy recall
| and competence-based civil servant positions doesn't seem any
| less democratic.
| bb123 wrote:
| Come on bud, that's a silly argument disproved with a 2
| second google search. The U.K. ranks 16th on the democracy
| index, and China ranks 151st. At this point I can only
| assume you're arguing in bad faith for fun.
| lucian1900 wrote:
| Living in the UK, I can tell you it's definitely not a
| democracy. Chinese friends I spoke to feel the opposite
| about their own country.
|
| Who wrote that index? Where are they from? What interests
| do they have? How do they show up high in search results?
| bb123 wrote:
| This is such an ignorant and dangerous point of view. By
| disregarding the very real and very important rights that
| one has the UK to free and fair elections, due process
| and a free media, you're excusing the horrible and
| dangerous things that China does. Have you spoken to any
| friends from Hong Kong or Taiwan on their opinion of
| Chinese "democracy"? Or the Uighur muslims in
| concentration camps? Or the political dissidents that
| disappear? thought not. You'd rather spout 14-year old
| level edgy half thoughts.
| infinity0 wrote:
| The problem today is that you have these nice laws to
| protect the media, but they themselves are not taking
| responsibility for their own actions, instead they pander
| to the prejudices of their readers. They have failed to
| realise that "free speech" (and other rights) can be
| exercised in a very negative way, and are undermining
| their own society for the profit motive, or other
| political motives.
|
| Regarding Hong Kong, this is a nice and detailed video by
| some Hong Kong folks including an ex-executive council
| member https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VohJu-14w
| lucian1900 wrote:
| And you'd rather repeat imperialist propaganda, much of
| which contradicts itself or has been repeatedly debunked.
|
| Last UK election, a small sliver of all votes actually
| mattered in electing the government. My vote in a solid
| Tory borough may as well not have been counted. What due
| process exactly? The one provided to Assange? Or to those
| beaten by police for daring to protest? Or to the
| hundreds that die in police custody? What free press?
| Most papers defend the Tories. Have you even seen how
| demonised Corbyn was almost universally, how unified the
| slander was?
|
| I've spoken to a quite a few people that live in Hong
| Kong, many support the PRC and condemn the US-backed
| unrest. I know a few people in Taiwan, many are for some
| form of unification with the mainland. I know few people
| in Xinjiang, but from what they said the situation in the
| western press is being vastly misrepresented.
| bb123 wrote:
| I suppose at this point we will have to agree to
| disagree, but I've got to ask if the U.K. is such a
| hellscape, why live there?
| infinity0 wrote:
| I'm not the person you spoke to but I can answer this
| question from my own perspective:
|
| I'm Chinese, grew up in the UK, but I do consider moving
| back to China as a long-term option that I'll have to
| think seriously about. The main barrier for me is
| language & culture, my Chinese skills are awful; for
| other similar people I'd expect finances too but luckily
| that's not the case for me.
|
| My parents came to the UK from China to study because
| they wanted a better life. That was in the 90s where
| China was admittedly a bit of a shithole, relative to
| other countries including the UK. My dad went back to
| China after a few years of working, because he felt he'd
| do better in a country where he understood the culture
| better. My mum stayed in the UK because she really really
| dislikes the Chinese government (for historical reasons).
| These days they occasionally mention that some of their
| classmates, that stayed in China, are doing better than
| them. My mum is quite stubborn though so she doesn't
| consider moving back as an option.
|
| My cousin visited the UK a few years ago and told me "oh
| is that all it is" - there's still a cultural impression
| that western countries are really great, so he thought
| it'd be way more impressive (he only visited Aberdeen and
| Manchester, never London, but still London is not _that_
| much better), and that 's why rich parents still send
| their kids to school in the west; similarly there's still
| a cultural impression from western countries that China
| is a bit of a shithole & authoritarian to boot - but
| reality has changed a lot in the past 30 years.
| infinity0 wrote:
| I do not believe there is any systematic suppression of
| the Uighurs in Xinjiang (where they are a majority), this
| is not consistent with Chinese history. As far as I can
| make out, a very small minority of people are being held
| for anti-extremism purposes; but generally the Uighur
| population and culture are thriving in Xinjiang - there
| are lots of primary sources on this, search "life in
| xinjiang" on youtube for example.
|
| The media is certainly currently waging a disinformation
| war against China, blowing the reality up into
| "genocide", "cultural suppression", "sterilisation", etc
| - this is all inconsistent with the masses of primary
| sources, and the cheap propaganda tactics are disgusting
| and shameful. The few concrete individual reports that we
| do have, many of them have also been debunked or are
| obviously inconsistent (e.g. changing stories multiple
| times).
|
| The camps may not be great compared to regular life in a
| first-world country, but compared to what the US did in
| the middle east - killing 100ks-millions of muslims -
| Xinjiang is probably the best result that a country has
| achieved in the world (so far) in fighting terrorism, and
| that's why most muslim-majority countries in fact support
| China on this issue. Of course, everyone can strive to do
| better, but that's not how western media is portraying
| it.
| xtian wrote:
| Oh, "the democracy index"? Good thing we have a neutral
| and objective measure of each country's quantity of
| abstract democracy. I'm sure there's no cultural
| chauvinism or politically-motivated biases at play here.
| stupendousyappi wrote:
| Do you have any specific criticisms of that index, or
| just generalized ideological grievances? Moreover, are
| you saying that the UK is not meaningfully more
| democratic than China, and therefore that index is
| inaccurate?
| xtian wrote:
| I don't think "democracy" is something you can measure
| objectively like a scientist in a lab. What these indexes
| measure is proximity to Western liberalism, but I think
| different peoples have the right to their own forms of
| government.
| bb123 wrote:
| They publish extremely detailed methodology for each
| country, so feel free to browse and let me know which
| parts you disagree with (assuming you're not in China,
| because you probably won't be able to access this there.
| All that democracy hey ;)
|
| https://freedomhouse.org/country/china/freedom-world/2021
|
| Some highlights for China:
|
| * There are no direct or competitive elections for
| national executive leaders. * Elections are not
| administered by an independent body. * China's one-party
| system rigorously suppresses the development of any
| organized political opposition * The political system is
| dominated in practice by ethnic Han Chinese men. Societal
| groups such as women, ethnic and religious minorities,
| and LGBT+ people have no opportunity to gain meaningful
| political representation * China is home to one of the
| world's most restrictive media environments and its most
| sophisticated system of censorship, particularly online.
| * None of China's national leaders are freely elected,
| and the legislature plays a minimal role in policymaking
| and the development of new laws. * The CCP regime has
| established a multifaceted apparatus to control all
| aspects of religious activity
|
| It goes on and on. All of this seems pretty tangible to
| me? Again please let me know what I'm missing.
| xtian wrote:
| The National People's Congress in China has more members
| per capita than the US House or Senate as well as more
| independents and minority party representation.
|
| The NPC has a higher percentage of women than the US
| Congress (exceeding the world average).
|
| Ethnic minorities make up 8% of China's overall
| population, but they make up 14.7% of the seats of the
| NPC. They also make up 7.3% of the more than 90 million
| members of the Communist Party of China (which also
| consists of 27.2% women). Ethnic minorities make up 39%
| of the overall population of the US, but only 25% of the
| US Congress.
|
| A study by the Harvard Kennedy School found 93.1%
| satisfaction with the central government in China in
| 2016. US Congress currently has a 29.3% approval rating,
| but has been hovering below 20% for most of the last
| decade.
|
| The two viable US political parties are overwhelmingly
| funded by billionaires and large corporations. Those two
| parties decide the criteria for acceptance into the
| presidential debates which prevents minority parties from
| gaining national prominence. Billionaires and large
| corporations also own all the major media outlets and
| platforms, and they use that power to control narratives
| and deplatform inconvenient political figures and ideas.
|
| Therefore China is more democratic than the US. See how
| easy that is?
| [deleted]
| bb123 wrote:
| You picked on the smallest point that I'd quoted, and
| then finished the argument with complete conjecture about
| the US (we were discussing the UK?). Have you actually
| read the source? Specifically the part about systematic
| extermination of minorities? I can't help but feel people
| like you would have been defending the Nazi party like
| this in the run up to WWII.
| xtian wrote:
| I'm from the US so that's what I'm qualified to speak
| about. It rates highly on this supposedly authoritative
| index so that's why I used it as an example.
|
| What I mentioned about the US is not conjecture. The
| funding of US political parties is public record. The
| Commission on Presidential Debates was created by the
| Democratic and Republican parties. The ownership of the
| major US media platforms is also public record, and they
| just unilaterally deplatflormed Donald Trump and QAnon
| groups.
|
| What's utter nonsense is saying the NPC "plays a minimal
| role in policymaking and the development of new laws" or
| that the CPC has a "multifaceted apparatus to control all
| aspects of religious activity."
|
| I guarantee I've looked into the claims of systemic
| extermination and genocide against China more seriously
| than you. I wouldn't be speaking positively about the
| Chinese government if I thought those claims held water.
| infinity0 wrote:
| This methodology is biased towards a western perspective
| on how democracies "must" be run. Taken literally, a
| democracy is a direct democracy, but no country today is
| a direct democracy because everybody recognises that it
| has flaws. So every democratic system tries to make a
| balance.
|
| Yes, China fixes a 1-party state, but how does that
| differ from fixing e.g. the judicial branch in the US
| system which also cannot be elected?
|
| The minorities angle is just weird and shows you have no
| understanding about China - minorities generally have
| preferential policies in many aspects of law, e.g. the
| One-Child policy (now Two-Child policy). That's more than
| you can say for the US.
|
| China's censorship system is not that sophisticated it's
| just large scale. The purpose is more to ensure large-
| scale stability, and they don't care about small-scale
| private conversations between individuals. The US is
| currently grappling difficult questions about how to
| moderate fake news, large corporations are stuck in a
| difficult place - on one hand they are accused of
| promoting fake news, on the other hand they are accused
| of suppressing free speech. So just because China took a
| strong stance on this, does not mean they are "evil" for
| doing so.
|
| Again, you need to have some cultural background of China
| before judging it, rather than judging it based on
| western preconceptions of how a democracy "must" work
| like.
| [deleted]
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| OK, so what's the defence for the blatant defiance of
| international law in the Chagos Islands?
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| I for one, am shocked and stunned, that John Gruber is defending
| Apple.
|
| After all, will you bite the hand that feeds you?
| viktorcode wrote:
| What I like about his blog, is he makes it pretty clear _why_
| he 's saying what's he's saying, both when defending and
| criticising Apple. You may disagree with him (I often do), but
| it would be nice to see you showing disagreement with Gruber's
| line of argument, rather than just TL;DR part. Makes the
| argument less tribal.
| EdwardDiego wrote:
| His _why_ is his beliefs. He doesn't _believe_ that Apple
| would do what was claimed.
|
| It's hard to rebut him when it's all the language of belief -
| I have no more facts about the situation than he does. That's
| the beauty of beliefs, facts are optional.
| williesleg wrote:
| Of course
| est wrote:
| > (Note: you may be wondering why I have included the US in a
| list of authoritarian governments. Let me remind you of the
| outrageous police brutality that we saw last summer. And let's
| not forget the orange elephant in the room.)
|
| Okay then. OP seems to suggest that a private company should take
| the responsibility to defy government requirements and orders
| because the government is labeled bad?
|
| I don't think it's very practical.
|
| Besides, an OS or device vendor can arbitrarily dictate what kind
| of app a user can get, in my opinion, is the true elephant here.
| sneak wrote:
| The alternative is even less practical in the long term.
| est wrote:
| what kind of alternative?
|
| IMHO free distribution of apps is the only viable
| alternative.
|
| Yes there will be scams and malwares but hey that's the price
| to pay to enter the Bazaar rather than the Church.
| sneak wrote:
| The alternative being _not_ defying government
| requirements.
| summerlight wrote:
| Apple made this problem itself. They wanted to retain a full,
| complete control on what users can do with their product. This
| made their App Store a single point of failure. Coincidentally,
| those authoritarian governments want the exact same control on
| their people so it's perfectly natural to see their relentless
| attempts to control App Store. The solution is obvious, but I'm
| 100% sure that Apple won't take that path unless it's forced to
| do so.
| collyw wrote:
| All of Europe at present.
| fay59 wrote:
| I don't remember the exact controversy, but I remember some
| controversy during the Obama years where a prominent US company
| complied with some censorious Chinese requirements. Obama said
| something along the lines of "I wish you'd come to us before
| agreeing to this. We would have helped."
|
| As these the list starts in 2017, I wonder how much of this is
| the result of the US's decreased willingness to export its values
| abroad during the Trump years.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| Apple complies with all governments in markets that are sizeable
| to their business.
|
| Authoritarian governments that are into surveillance love looking
| into your icloud and itunes accounts. They use FISA and National
| Security Letters to pry into your and everyone elses life.
|
| https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fbi-government-national-secu...
| baybal2 wrote:
| Things are a bit worse, Tim Cook may be a closet communist as
| suggested him hiring a lobbying firm to shield communists from
| forced labour bill
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...
| stinos wrote:
| Anyone has examples of companies (big or small) who actively go
| against this and refuse to cooperate and thereby willingly give
| up the money?
| sneak wrote:
| Google refused to censor search in China, and got the GFE
| blocked by the GFW.
|
| Later they bent over backwards to get back in with a special
| censored search (Project Dragonfly) which got "cancelled" due
| to western and employee backlash (but wasn't really), continued
| a bit in secret, then really cancelled (so it was reported).
|
| Also, Qwest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio
| techrat wrote:
| Google also allows app sideloading which is something that
| becomes critical during civil unrest in the countries
| mentioned in the article.
| brorfred wrote:
| Sideloading also allows authoritarian regimes to add apps
| to your phone. See
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/chinese-
| border...
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Yes, it's a double-edged knife, but let's keep in mind
| that the government actually has enough power to spy its
| citizens without tampering the devices, with the social
| networks, cell locations...
| brorfred wrote:
| Very true but a side loaded app can do so much more.
| Possibly even act as a key logger. Definitely provide
| info about all your whereabouts during protests.
| techrat wrote:
| Good thing being able to sideload an app also implies
| that you can remove offending apps.
|
| Something Apple still doesn't let you do.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| As opposed to not sideloading which... does exactly the
| same thing.
|
| https://www.macrumors.com/2021/03/16/apple-to-offer-
| governme...
| brorfred wrote:
| Not at all. I read that story as the suggested apps being
| on the AppStore and having gone through the normal
| vetting by Apple. If so, then the government doesn't have
| access to any more backdoors than already potentially
| exists in for example WeChat or Alipay.
| ladyanita22 wrote:
| Yeah, despite not as free as common linux distributions
| (can Android even be considered Linux at all?), it is the
| better choice in these kind of situations.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| It happens, but not often - I'm struggling to think of an
| example. I am sure they exist.
|
| It isn't that surprising that an authoritarian power structure
| whose sole purpose is to create wealth for the owners of the
| structure would ally themselves with... an authoritarian power
| structure whose sole purpose is to create wealth for the owners
| of the structure.
| Qahlel wrote:
| How about H&M and China?
| howtofly wrote:
| H&M is a total failure in the Chinese market.
| Supermancho wrote:
| > H&M is a total failure in the Chinese market.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/252187/sales-of-the-
| hund...
|
| I don't think that's a credible statement.
| [deleted]
| threeseed wrote:
| Adidas, H&M, Nike etc were all signatories to the Better Cotton
| Initiative which were heavily critical of widespread human
| right abuses in Xinjiang.
|
| They have been subjected to pretty harsh treatment from China
| including their online stores being disabled, frozen out of
| third party stores, supply chain disruptions and lots of
| critical media stories from government mouthpieces.
| stinos wrote:
| Thanks, interesting reads.
| tomcam wrote:
| And Parler
| saagarjha wrote:
| With the App Store, Apple's really brought this problem upon
| themselves whether they agree with what they are told to do or
| not. Any sort of centralized distribution mechanism is always
| going to be the first thing an authoritarian government targets
| when trying to take down content they don't like. On iPhone it's
| even worse because the App Store is not only a centralized
| distribution mechanism but the _only_ distribution mechanism. If
| you want something gone, you can just force Apple and that's that
| for iPhone.
| ben_w wrote:
| I sort-of agree. Apple must be bound by the laws of each nation
| it operates in, but those laws can be in conflict, and even a
| company cannot be the servant of two masters [0]; the only
| solutions I can even imagine boil down to properly separate
| versions of -- call it "Apple Software and Services Inc." -- in
| each jurisdiction. Same for Google.
|
| [0] It's been annoying me for years that I, a British national
| living in Germany, have to tell the US federal government about
| all encryption I use in apps made solely for the German market.
| What happens if it starts annoying the EU, too, and they pass a
| law saying we can't tell the US government anything about it?
| leowbattle wrote:
| "have to tell the US federal government about all encryption
| I use"
|
| Can you elaborate on that?
| rahkiin wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/complyin
| g...
| curt15 wrote:
| This would also seem to be a vulnerability of Canonical's
| centralised snap store. Would they take down submissions
| containing content that the CCP objects to?
| LockAndLol wrote:
| Snap provides commands to pull from other snap stores.
| There's nothing preventing people from setting up their own
| snap stores.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| This is incorrect. It does not have commands to pull from
| other app stores and Canonical has stated they have no
| intention of adding external repositories of any kind. It
| does have commands to manually install a pre-downloaded
| snap package, but you have to put `--dangerous` on the CLI
| and you won't get auto-updates for that manually installed
| package either.
| max_ wrote:
| I keep on telling my friends that there is a very hungry market
| for a new smartphone co.
|
| One, that doesn't participate in these primal endeavours of
| domination, manipulation & control.
|
| Its not complicated just allow users to install what they want.
|
| Allow people to distribute what they want.
|
| Apple & Google are at terminal phase of coperate Asperger's
| towards users at this point. Complaining is useless.
| chenzhekl wrote:
| The problem is not what Apple removes from the App Store. It is
| that they do not allow a third-party store to exist on their
| platform.
| markvdb wrote:
| Just to give some perspective on how far things have changed
| since 1998, have a look at
| https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/17/world/apple-removes-the-d... .
| betwixthewires wrote:
| I find the word "problematic" in the first paragraph. That's
| usually a sign, but it is a word that people use, so whatever,
| let's ignore it and continue.
|
| Sure enough, the article enters a tirade about the "human rights
| violator in chief." Draws _motive_ from an advertisement with the
| then president of the US in it, and advertisement of an american
| company, the first trillion dollar company who reached that
| valuation under that president, and attributes it to the CEO. The
| CEO of apple will _stoop to any level_ to garner favor, lower
| than cooperating with authoritarian dictators even, so says the
| article.
| ketamine__ wrote:
| The friends you keep says a lot about you.
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/...
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Friends don't let friends share amp links. Do you have a
| direct link to the article?
| judge2020 wrote:
| If you click it, the `referer: news.ycombinator.com` header
| tells Google to redirect to the website itself.
|
| https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2018/04/07/Saudi-
| Cro...
| ketamine__ wrote:
| Piss off. I'll link amp if I want.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I think it is kind of an unreasonable expectation that businesses
| will flout the law of countries they operate in out of some sense
| of principle. There are plenty of unsavory actors right here at
| home Apple answers to, and I'm not sure that a world of sovereign
| corporations would be improvement anyway.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I think people would have far less problems with tech companies
| selling to _anyone_ if they didn't push moral crusades
| themselves. Apple is clearly interested in pushing its own
| ethical views, but only when they don't risk serious profits for
| it. It's a special kind of self-serving hypocrisy; paint yourself
| as noble when nothing is on the line, but keep mum when you might
| lose something.
|
| If they stopped acting like moral crusaders and simply said, "We
| sell computers to anyone with money," there would be much less of
| an issue.
| kinghtown wrote:
| There are zero companies going to war with China. It is simply
| outside the sphere of their influence. I know you haven't used
| the word war but the general and unwarranted disappointment
| with Apple for doing business with the people of China is
| deeply rooted in an unrealistic understanding of geopolitics. I
| think it would be great for Apple to openly denounce the PRC
| and defy them utterly but I also think it would be great if
| they would gift each citizen of the world a brand new iphone.
|
| Apple is trying to disentangle itself from China slowly, as are
| all the smart companies with labour investments in the country.
| Is Apppe supposed to be the only company willing to take a
| massive hit to their business by defying China? Almost all of
| their manufacturing is being held hostage in the country.
|
| I hate the PRC, extremely counter cultural, hate wealth
| disparity, all that but I can't fault Apple for playing ball
| here.
| ceilingcorner wrote:
| I would rather Apple cease being a moral arbiter entirely. I
| don't need a computer company in California telling me what
| I'm allowed to do, say, think, or read. That is the business
| of governments and individuals.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| _I don't need a computer company in California telling me
| what I'm allowed to do, say, think, or read._
|
| Where does this line of thinking come from? Why do you
| think Apple has this power over you? Does anyone else feel
| this way?
| tomcam wrote:
| I do. They shut down the Parler app.
| [deleted]
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| Apple is not a moral arbiter of anything lol you remain
| free to do, say, think, read whatever you want, even beyond
| the Apple ecosystem. Whatever you can't do within theirs,
| however, is well within their right to constrain because
| businesses also have the right to design their platforms
| the way they want to. Anything else beyond their willful
| design is within the territory of government intervention,
| and strong proponents of free-market capitalism who want
| Apple to do something else should really rethink their
| philosophy on how the state and the economy should be
| designed.
| paul_f wrote:
| Maybe you missed the "I would rather" part, offering an
| alternative.
|
| The question is not Apple's right to control speech on
| their platform. It is their hypocrisy in wanting to
| control speech in free countries and at the same time
| cozying up and doing the bidding of authoritarian states.
| You cannot have it both ways with out looking the fool.
| Impose ethical standards in all cases or none.
| tracer4201 wrote:
| But you can have it both ways. If I can reasonably
| control what happens on my platform in country A, I will.
| If I cannot do so in country B, then I won't.
|
| Another country could be fully authoritarian. If I can't
| do X in China but I can do it within the legal framework
| in the US, how is that hypocrisy?
| CountDrewku wrote:
| >Apple is not a moral arbiter of anything lol you remain
| free to do, say, think, read whatever you want, even
| beyond the Apple ecosystem.
|
| Do you really though? There are a handful of major
| competitors and they're all acting in coercion with
| similar ideology. So, no you're really not free to say or
| read what you want without shunning big tech entirely and
| hoping you find some other platform they haven't stomped
| out yet.
| tracer4201 wrote:
| I don't see Apple pushing their web moral views. They sell to a
| particular audience. In the US, they cater to a specific
| audience and want to be careful with how that segment views
| Apple on particular social or political issues.
|
| You or I don't have to agree with Apples policies or public
| statements on these matters, and we certainly don't have to buy
| their products.
|
| Companies or their founders pushing certain policies is nothing
| new. In my opinion, there's an unreasonable standard tech
| companies are held to. At the end of the day, their job is to
| make money for their stakeholders, for better or worse.
| iagovar wrote:
| It's specially annoying when your're not american, but I feel
| it way more with Google and Social Media. It feels like having
| anglo political frame pushed down the throat, it gets boring
| pretty quick.
|
| The worst is that it is successful with newer generations, and
| they divert their attention to anglo issues instead of local
| ones.
| johncessna wrote:
| It's pretty annoying when you are an American too.
| umvi wrote:
| > If they stopped acting like moral crusaders and simply said,
| "We sell computers to anyone with money," there would be much
| less of an issue.
|
| I'm not so sure. There are (a loud minority?) of "woke"
| software developers now that will try to drum up pressure on
| your company from within and without if you sell to "anyone
| with money" (see: GitHub selling to ICE). Google frequently has
| to deal with this, I'm sure Apple does too.
|
| Maybe mitigating/ignoring woke outrage is preferable to the
| corporate ethical schizophrenia you described (it's certainly
| simpler), but I don't think the issue would go away.
| undefined1 wrote:
| woke developers are acting as moral crusaders just like Apple
| is. renaming "master branch" to "main branch" doesn't solve
| anything. posting the latest Twitter slacktivism hashtag
| doesn't solve anything. it's just for show, to appear
| virtuous while still collecting big tech paychecks.
| mberning wrote:
| You said it perfectly. It is surprising to see so many people
| coming to the defense of poor pitifual Apple, the richest
| company in the world. They have little reservation over doing
| business with vile regimes to squeeze a few more pennies per
| unit out of an iPhone. Then they buck dance for every social
| cause under the sun back home. Hypocrites.
| abstractbarista wrote:
| I'm really happy to not own any Apple products. They cost too
| much while simultaneously limiting what I can do.
|
| I am happy they are popular, because I own stock in them. Other
| than that, they clearly have near zero patriotic morals.
| frusciante19 wrote:
| methinks thou hast a ginormous horse to sit upon!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| The author indirectly advocates sanctioning these regimes. If
| that is the case, their best path is through government. Playing
| whack-a-mole with individual companies is, while decent clickbait
| and PR fodder, useless with respect to real-world outcomes.
| spacebear wrote:
| I think what the author is arguing for is allowing iOS users to
| install software without Apple's permission.
| latexr wrote:
| Reminder of Tim Cook's twitter bio[1]:
|
| > "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you
| doing for others?'" - MLK
|
| Maybe he should read it more often.
|
| [1]: https://twitter.com/tim_cook
| coldtea wrote:
| Could be summed up as "Company's cooperation with local
| government" period.
|
| Once you do business in a country, you follow the country's
| rules.
|
| Simple as that.
|
| You don't get to pick and chose or impose your own (and usually,
| your own culture's and governments and national interest's) ideas
| and laws.
|
| Unless of course the country is a banana republic, which China
| isn't.
| woutr_be wrote:
| While I agree, I think in most cases there is a "morally right
| thing to do". If the laws in certain countries go against the
| right thing, then maybe it's time to go against those laws. Of
| course that's easy to say as an individual. For a company it
| essentially means giving up your market in that country.
| coldtea wrote:
| On the other hand, who's to say? Your own country and ideas
| about the "morally right thing to do", or the locals?
| woutr_be wrote:
| I don't think that matters, if you're the CEO of a company,
| and are doing business in a country where you're obliged to
| give up your morals, then it's up to you to either throw
| away your sense of right or wrong, or give up the country
| and stand up for the right thing.
| pogorniy wrote:
| > Once you do business in a country, you follow the country's
| rules. > Unless of course the country is a banana republic,
|
| Smelly-smelly. Don't pretend you're holding to a value of "rule
| of the law". You're holding to the rule of the strongest.
| ii550 wrote:
| Am I the only one who thinks this story smells like smear
| campaign from facebook??
| neonate wrote:
| I'd have more sympathy if he didn't include, in his primary
| examples, one that he himself admits there's no evidence for.
|
| _there is little direct evidence to support this exact claim.
| While I am willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt and
| consider this an inconvenient coincidence, I would not be
| surprised if this were a deliberate move._
|
| "I would not be surprised if" is not how honest argument works.
| On the other hand, at least he admits it. A hit piece would have
| insisted it's all true.
| AcerbicZero wrote:
| This seems like it misses the point - American companies doing
| business with authoritarian regimes that don't have American
| interests at heart, are inherently un-American and unworthy of
| American support.
|
| Either we're in this together, or the invisible line in the dirt
| means nothing and I want my money back.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _authoritarian regimes that don't have American interests at
| heart, are inherently un-American and unworthy of American
| support_
|
| Foreign democracies don't have American interests at heart.
| Should we cut trade ties with Germany as a result?
|
| Our power comes from trade. Backing up into ideological autarky
| would be self defeating. Similarly, asking individual companies
| to stop trading with countries their competitors may legally
| trade with is dumb.
|
| Convince your fellow voters to put on sensible, targeted
| tariffs and sanctions. Or accept that commerce plows wider
| fields than ideology.
| brainless wrote:
| The issue is not that this is happening with Apple products, the
| issue is that it is happening everywhere. What do I purchase?
|
| I want a device which puts my privacy first and one which my
| family members can operate too. Without me being on the line to
| teach them how.
|
| We simply have too little competition in the phone OS market from
| my point of view. Also web-first phone are pretty rare.
| theodric wrote:
| Unfortunately there is no money for Apple, or anyone, in
| putting your family safety and privacy first, since selling you
| out is far more profitable since most people don't care. By the
| time it gets bad enough for them to care, it will be too late
| to turn back.
|
| Disillusionment with the way things are going is the reason
| I've kinda decided to step away from tech. I will miss the
| income, but I won't miss the dystopian hellscape. I'm buying a
| farm. Gonna raise chickens. Will automate as much of it as I
| can with non-cloud FLOSS and my own code and sweat. I will not
| try to grow it to billions, I will prioritize my time.
| brainless wrote:
| > since most people don't care
|
| This is the biggest trouble we face. If we, as users, do not
| care enough, companies have no reason to change anything.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Companies wouldn't try to hide privacy violations if no one
| cared.
|
| People care about privacy. They don't understand how their
| data is used and believe they can't do anything about it.[1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-
| an...
| amelius wrote:
| > I want a device which puts my privacy first.
|
| I want a device which puts _me_ first. As opposed to the vendor
| of the device.
| eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote:
| Fairphone + LineageOS might be a good option
| brainless wrote:
| BTW I do not mean there are no issues in the laptop/desktop OS
| market. But majority of people use the phone to store personal
| information now.
| fsflover wrote:
| > I want a device which puts my privacy first.
|
| https://puri.sm/products
|
| > and one which my family members can operate too. Without me
| being on the line to teach them how
|
| I am afraid that it is always necessary, even with Apple
| devices. My relatives use Linux just fine after I explained a
| couple of things.
| brainless wrote:
| Even my family uses Linux on laptops, have been using for a
| decade now. But that is exactly why I mentioned phone. The
| options are too few here.
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| I use librem labtop, but have been waiting a few years for a
| preordered phone from them.
| fsflover wrote:
| Same here. They have sound reasons for the delay though:
| https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/community-
| wiki/-/wikis/Freque....
| rgovostes wrote:
| The "Apple will preinstall apps for the Russian government" bit
| is untrue, and has spread around due to shoddy tech journalism.
| iMore, which repeats the falsehood in the article title[0],
| includes a translation of a Russian news article:
|
| > The agreements stipulate that the first time Apple is purchased
| in Russia, the user will see a dialog window when setting up, in
| which he will be asked to install applications from the
| government-approved list by default, Vedomosti said. It will be
| possible to refuse installation, removing ticks in front of
| certain applications, explains the source of the publication.
|
| So really it is an opt-out list of apps presented at setup, which
| are downloaded and installed after user confirmation. The apps
| are, presumably, still subject to iOS security policy.
|
| It's clearly not ideal, and reminds me of the dark years of
| trying to avoid accidentally installing the Yahoo Toolbar. But
| it's not as evil as it sounds from the headline, and it would be
| stupid of Apple to pull out of the Russian market over this (as
| iMore says they once threatened).
|
| Save your rage for when iMessage encryption is nerfed, and
| government-approved apps are no longer opt-out.
|
| 0: https://www.imore.com/apple-agrees-pre-install-apps-
| russian-...
| tazjin wrote:
| This doesn't sound particularly evil to me and seems perfectly
| in line with the Russian government's intention of reducing its
| reliance on American tech companies (by nudging consumers in
| the direction of their domestic alternatives).
|
| IMO, doing this would be a good idea for Europe, too. To some
| degree laws like the browser choice thing already go in this
| direction, but they still mostly present American alternatives.
| newbie578 wrote:
| I am always amazed and surprised when reading comments on HN
| regarding Apple, even though I know what I will read.
|
| No matter what Apple does, the Apple apologists come out of the
| woods to defend their overlords.
|
| I always like to play a little game, which I believe could also
| be a nice browser extension.
|
| Read the comments and articles, but replace the word Apple with
| Microsoft. Opinions and stances would shift dramatically under a
| minute.
|
| I cannot fathom that there are adult educated people living in a
| free democracy defending a company which works with a
| authoritarian government which is involed in a GENOCIDE.
| latexr wrote:
| Can we retire this argument already? Or at least show hard data
| to back up this tired claim--it's been made so often, it should
| be doable by now.
|
| From anecdotal observation, any big company mentioned on HN
| will have critics, apologists, critics of the apologists, and
| (perhaps most relevant) fans of the company who criticise their
| behaviours. Apple isn't special in that regard, except it seems
| to draw the most fervorous irrational hate towards its users.
| It reminds me of meat-eaters who won't shut up about
| vegetarians being annoying, while remaining ironically
| oblivious that they're far worse offenders of the behaviour
| they decry.
| hu3 wrote:
| > From anecdotal observation, any big company mentioned on HN
| will have critics, apologists, critics of the apologists.
|
| "fanboyism" isn't a boolean value as you imply. Every company
| has it but where it sits between 0.0 and 1.0 varies wildly
| between companies.
|
| Your parent's argument is that when it comes to Apple on HN,
| their "fanboy rating" sits well beyond the bell curve peak.
| latexr wrote:
| > "fanboyism" isn't a boolean value
|
| Agreed.
|
| > Your parent's argument is that when it comes to Apple on
| HN, their "fanboy rating" sits well beyond the bell curve
| peak.
|
| And my argument is "let's see the data". Parent's point is
| repeated ad nauseam yet I've never seen any evidence it's
| not confirmation bias on the part of people who are anti-
| Apple. If this is such a glaring problem as cited, it
| should be provable. Either do it or please stop repeating
| an unsubstantiated unhelpful argument which only serves to
| divide further. Fanaticism doesn't become OK when it's anti
| something.
| coldtea wrote:
| Most of this "X does Y with authoritarian government" is
| basically individuals picking up government signals (propagated
| through the media) for the new enemy of the day.
|
| That's why it gets increasingly more frequent at a particular
| time (whereas China has been authoritative for decades when the
| same now "indignant" people didn't write about it), uses the same
| talking points (often of some bad but useful source that's
| repeated as gospel, "orange revolution" style opposition, ex-pats
| with axes to grind, etc.), and is focused on the singled-out
| "enemy du jour" even if there are tons of allies doing the same
| or worse.
|
| Selective government talk points, "leaks" to the press,
| propaganda pieces, "exclusive access", etc, fuels this further.
|
| Until there's another enemy to focus on, when it all deflates.
| Context_free wrote:
| Yes. In the past year I have heard endless breathless "news
| reports" about how China supposedly manufactured Covid in a
| lab, to how they are committing genocide with Uighur muslims,
| to how they are not respecting the UK's continuing dominion
| over Hong Kong, to how they never innovate and only steal
| technology from the US, to how they are being aggressive in the
| east China sea, how they're threatening Taiwan, and on and on
| and on.
|
| Of course I have been hearing the same thing at various times
| about Cubans, Venezuelans, Russians, Palestinians, Iraqis,
| Syrians, Iranians, Libyans - Blinken just denounced the arrests
| of those involved in the post-coup massacre in Bolivia. And on
| and on. This piece is an example of the drive for ever
| expanding imperial policy under an authoritarian government.
| infinity0 wrote:
| I am sorry some people downvoted you, this supposedly-
| rational forum is not immune from extreme anti-China
| prejudices either.
|
| Indeed these constantly-negative news reports are ridiculous
| and serve further to indoctrinate everyone that "China is
| evil". People should visit China for themselves and
| understand just how screwed the media portrayals are. Today's
| "free speech" media seem to think that their shit doesn't
| stink and everything they do is holy. They can't even write
| positively about China's successful lockdowns and somehow
| manage to blow up a single case of local authorities
| overstretching (then getting both politically and publicly
| reprimanded for it) into "China covered up covid". Absolutely
| ridiculous.
| Croftengea wrote:
| Even though I agree with your view in general, it's worth
| pointing out that the article author is not a random
| "individual picking up government signals".
|
| Jesse Squires is quite prominent contributor to the Apple's
| macOS/iOS development ecosystem and he definitely cares about
| Apple's reputation and the future. Apple is his bread and
| butter and if he's concerned with what's going on on this front
| there is something to think about...
| tarsinge wrote:
| Thanks for bringing that up. It was very obvious last year and
| is now that the election period is over. While the issues are
| real, the correlation between geopolitical consideration du
| jour and the media putting the spotlight on democracy issues is
| important to keep in mind, so that we remember to not be blind
| to other regions (e.g. Yemen) or don't let it deflates like you
| said when the focus move.
| tchalla wrote:
| Thnak you for outlining this. I'd even say the "enemy" is more
| often than not one that disturbs the established neo-colonial
| structure. The moment a "new player enters the chat" -
| countries start with the "enemy speak" that you talk about.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-31 23:03 UTC)