4 ms·

I expect Apple to respect universal human rights regardless of the context. Freedom of speech is foundational. And this isn't a China-vs-the-West thing. The id

I expect Apple to respect universal human rights regardless of the context. Freedom of speech is foundational. And this isn't a China-vs-the-West thing. The idea that people deserve and need to be able to communicate freely predates the current governments of both China and the U.S.

leppr 9y ago
It's been known for years that Apple is actively against freedom of speech when it comes to its marketplace. Why would you expect it to make an exception for China ?
- JustSomeNobody 9y ago
  Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Apple can keep whatever they want out of their store.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Why is this downvoted? It’s a factual statement. Freedoms of speech (in the U.S.) is that Congress shall make no law.. A radio station that refuses to play my song or let me talk isn’t violating my freedom of speech. Facebook censoring “hate speech” is not violating freedom of speech. Hate speech is protected speech under the U.S. constitution. (Before anyone brings up Schenck v. United States, that case ruled that speech that present imminent danger (yelling fire in a crowded theater) was not protected, but hate speech doesn’t generally reach a level of immediate danger. So if we are to criticize Apple for curating their store, we must criticize Facebook for curating their platform. We must also crisis Google for their curation of advertising content as well. Because unless hate speech says “kill <some group> today at 5pm at the local market,” it’s broadly protected under the U.S. constitution. What that means that practically every single company in the U.S. is guilty of “violating free speech” – IF they were the government, but they are not and thus aren’t violating anyone’s right to free speech.
    - glomph 9y ago
      Because no one was talking about the United States or the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a broader concept than just what is set out in US law. In fact the conversation was quite specifically not about the US and not about that formulation of freedom of speech.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- flamedoge 9y ago
  Apple probably has more incentive to hold onto that fat margin China provides with their labor -- don't want to anger the Chinese gov't.
daKoder 9y ago
It's a business after all and China is a huge market for Apple. No one ever said that capitalism was very aligned with human rights. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- FRex 9y ago
  > No one ever said that capitalism was very aligned with human rights. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Typical answer I heard in this case is that you can create your own Apple and provide better and cheaper service and respects human rights. (No, in the eyes of mindless capitalists[1] barrier to entry doesn't exist.) [1] By that I mean people who say every single problem on Earth will be forced if only all regulations and governments are dissolved and 'free market' can 'regulate itself properly'.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The phone market isn't exactly open. There is more or less a government chartered oligopoly in mobile data industry. Those companies were leveraged to create the initial consumer lock in that Apple enjoys now. Interoperability without Apple's consent is also possible but it's a government chartered monopoly on technology (copyrights, patents, bans on circumvention) that prevents that. All that being said, you're talking to straw men here. Most died in the wool free market types still see a role for the government in preventing market abuse, including fraud, monopolies, insider trading, etc.
    - FRex 9y ago
      I'm not saying it's open. But clearly capitalism doesn't lead to solutions of all problems ever, as evidenced by this. But then a right winger will visit Shanghai, talk to a bunch of happy Chinese and make a YouTube video where he says that in China everyone is happy and rich while in EU your daily life is a struggle against Calais EuroTunnel stowaways or something. The only thing that allows China to do all these is political will of the people in countries that enable it. Somehow North Korea doesn't get a free pass but China does. As long as people value cheap products and ruthless 'capitalism' and 'free market' (if you can even call China that with all the governmental interference) more than rights of ordinary (i.e. not ones in central Shanghai) Chinese this will keep happening.
nine_k 9y ago
How exactly would they help respect it? Their choices are, as far as I can tell, to either remove certain apps from app store, or to face the app store blocked entirely. I wonder what servers their customers best. It's hard and unpleasant to conduct business in a place where laws are at odds with what you believe is right. But when it's lucrative enough, you may choose to shut up and comply.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > I wonder what servers their customers best. It sounds like that point can be accurately rephrased as, "We're censoring you, but we did some soul searching and we think it's for your own good."
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > "We're censoring you, but we did some soul searching and we think it's for your own good." There certainly aren't any souls waiting to be found in the earnings report.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      There are actual people that make these decisions. C-level executives or some sort of committee.
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  They could stop blocking sideloading, for one. That way they could comply in name but keep the block ineffective.
cyphar 9y ago
Apple has never been pro-free-speech. They have historically censored people in their marketplace from distributing software that disagrees with their political views. For example, they would not allow software that provides factual information about abortions and where to get them in their marketplace -- while at the same time they would allow software from "crisis pregnancy centers"[1] that frequently lie to women and make incorrect claims about dangerous risks of abortions. It boggles my mind that anyone could think Apple is somehow a vanguard of free speech. Their iThings are jails, they restrict what software you can run on them and they are the final arbiter on what software is allowed. What aspect of that is in keeping with free speech? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
archagon 9y ago
Not that I necessarily agree with this decision, but: "The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries 'special duties and responsibilities' and may 'therefore be subject to certain restrictions' when necessary '[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others' or '[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals'." (Wikipedia) Freedom of speech can be limited even as a universal human right.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Freedom of speech can be limited even as a universal human right. They are inalienable rights because it's wrong to limit them, not because a group voted to recognize them. The ICCPR's position is interesting to compare and contrast to what is right, not because it's the authority on what is right.
  - archagon 9y ago
    In the end, any and all rights, inalienable or otherwise, are arrived at by consensus, not extracted from the binding fibers of the universe.
    - jMyles 9y ago
      The western tradition does in fact hold that, in some form, the binding fibers of the universe are the guarantor of certain rights. That's the entire basis for the US Declaration of Independence.
      - archagon 9y ago
        Yes, and China is not really part of that tradition.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        Valid first principles aren't subject to tradition. In less abstract terms, the case is that abridging speech, especially political speech, is dehumanizing, inherently subjective (therefore unjust), a key tool for tyrrany, and harmful on the whole. It also reduces accountability by limiting the availability of facts and investigations. None of that says anything about democracy, capitalism, or the West.

leppr 9y ago

It's been known for years that Apple is actively against freedom of speech when it comes to its marketplace. Why would you expect it to make an exception for China ?

JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Apple can keep whatever they want out of their store.
- briandear 9y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It’s a factual statement. Freedoms of speech (in the U.S.) is that Congress shall make no law.. A radio station that refuses to play my song or let me talk isn’t violating my freedom of speech. Facebook censoring “hate speech” is not violating freedom of speech. Hate speech is protected speech under the U.S. constitution. (Before anyone brings up Schenck v. United States, that case ruled that speech that present imminent danger (yelling fire in a crowded theater) was not protected, but hate speech doesn’t generally reach a level of immediate danger. So if we are to criticize Apple for curating their store, we must criticize Facebook for curating their platform. We must also crisis Google for their curation of advertising content as well. Because unless hate speech says “kill <some group> today at 5pm at the local market,” it’s broadly protected under the U.S. constitution. What that means that practically every single company in the U.S. is guilty of “violating free speech” – IF they were the government, but they are not and thus aren’t violating anyone’s right to free speech.
  - glomph 9y ago
    Because no one was talking about the United States or the Constitution. Freedom of speech is a broader concept than just what is set out in US law. In fact the conversation was quite specifically not about the US and not about that formulation of freedom of speech.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
flamedoge 9y ago
Apple probably has more incentive to hold onto that fat margin China provides with their labor -- don't want to anger the Chinese gov't.

daKoder 9y ago

It's a business after all and China is a huge market for Apple. No one ever said that capitalism was very aligned with human rights. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

FRex 9y ago
> No one ever said that capitalism was very aligned with human rights. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Typical answer I heard in this case is that you can create your own Apple and provide better and cheaper service and respects human rights. (No, in the eyes of mindless capitalists[1] barrier to entry doesn't exist.) [1] By that I mean people who say every single problem on Earth will be forced if only all regulations and governments are dissolved and 'free market' can 'regulate itself properly'.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The phone market isn't exactly open. There is more or less a government chartered oligopoly in mobile data industry. Those companies were leveraged to create the initial consumer lock in that Apple enjoys now. Interoperability without Apple's consent is also possible but it's a government chartered monopoly on technology (copyrights, patents, bans on circumvention) that prevents that. All that being said, you're talking to straw men here. Most died in the wool free market types still see a role for the government in preventing market abuse, including fraud, monopolies, insider trading, etc.
  - FRex 9y ago
    I'm not saying it's open. But clearly capitalism doesn't lead to solutions of all problems ever, as evidenced by this. But then a right winger will visit Shanghai, talk to a bunch of happy Chinese and make a YouTube video where he says that in China everyone is happy and rich while in EU your daily life is a struggle against Calais EuroTunnel stowaways or something. The only thing that allows China to do all these is political will of the people in countries that enable it. Somehow North Korea doesn't get a free pass but China does. As long as people value cheap products and ruthless 'capitalism' and 'free market' (if you can even call China that with all the governmental interference) more than rights of ordinary (i.e. not ones in central Shanghai) Chinese this will keep happening.

nine_k 9y ago

How exactly would they help respect it? Their choices are, as far as I can tell, to either remove certain apps from app store, or to face the app store blocked entirely. I wonder what servers their customers best. It's hard and unpleasant to conduct business in a place where laws are at odds with what you believe is right. But when it's lucrative enough, you may choose to shut up and comply.

humanrebar 9y ago
> I wonder what servers their customers best. It sounds like that point can be accurately rephrased as, "We're censoring you, but we did some soul searching and we think it's for your own good."
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > "We're censoring you, but we did some soul searching and we think it's for your own good." There certainly aren't any souls waiting to be found in the earnings report.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    There are actual people that make these decisions. C-level executives or some sort of committee.
Nullabillity 9y ago
They could stop blocking sideloading, for one. That way they could comply in name but keep the block ineffective.

cyphar 9y ago

Apple has never been pro-free-speech. They have historically censored people in their marketplace from distributing software that disagrees with their political views. For example, they would not allow software that provides factual information about abortions and where to get them in their marketplace -- while at the same time they would allow software from "crisis pregnancy centers"[1] that frequently lie to women and make incorrect claims about dangerous risks of abortions. It boggles my mind that anyone could think Apple is somehow a vanguard of free speech. Their iThings are jails, they restrict what software you can run on them and they are the final arbiter on what software is allowed. What aspect of that is in keeping with free speech? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

archagon 9y ago

Not that I necessarily agree with this decision, but: "The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries 'special duties and responsibilities' and may 'therefore be subject to certain restrictions' when necessary '[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others' or '[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals'." (Wikipedia) Freedom of speech can be limited even as a universal human right.

humanrebar 9y ago
> Freedom of speech can be limited even as a universal human right. They are inalienable rights because it's wrong to limit them, not because a group voted to recognize them. The ICCPR's position is interesting to compare and contrast to what is right, not because it's the authority on what is right.
- archagon 9y ago
  In the end, any and all rights, inalienable or otherwise, are arrived at by consensus, not extracted from the binding fibers of the universe.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    The western tradition does in fact hold that, in some form, the binding fibers of the universe are the guarantor of certain rights. That's the entire basis for the US Declaration of Independence.
    - archagon 9y ago
      Yes, and China is not really part of that tradition.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Valid first principles aren't subject to tradition. In less abstract terms, the case is that abridging speech, especially political speech, is dehumanizing, inherently subjective (therefore unjust), a key tool for tyrrany, and harmful on the whole. It also reduces accountability by limiting the availability of facts and investigations. None of that says anything about democracy, capitalism, or the West.