4 ms·

There's a lot of discussion here, but I don't see the important question being asked: How (and whether) the removal of this app will help the women in Saudi Ar

There's a lot of discussion here, but I don't see the important question being asked: How (and whether) the removal of this app will help the women in Saudi Arabia: 1)In the short term 2)In the long term I.e. if the alternative to using the tracking app is not being able to travel (in the realities of that horrible state), then removal will make life of many women worse in the short term. Calls for bans and removals are the easiest form of moralizing without addressing the actual problem in any way. The same kind of logic brought us FOSTA/SESTA, which few people here are happy about. Let's not fall into the same trap.

ALittleLight 8y ago
It's certainly a question worth pondering. I don't see why the default assumption should be that this app is a net good though. I wonder too, if this app didn't exist, and they didn't let women travel at all, if their society would pay a cost that would eventually become untenable. Thus, while it's possible this would be bad in the short term (not demonstrated though) it's possible that it would also be good in the long term (also not demonstrated). In my opinion, without really compelling evidence, we should opt not to participate in the subjegation of women.
- romwell 8y ago
  >I don't see why the default assumption should be that this app is a net good though. It should not, and I agree with your assessment. Wish there was more thought in the same vein. It's just that women are missing from discussion of the effects of the course of action taken. People talk about how it would affect market share, but not day-to-day life of women in other threads.
int_19h 8y ago
The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. If they still do it without your help, that's unfortunate; and yes, you should probably do something to stop it. But if they do it with your help, then you are directly responsible for it, and the rest of us have a moral obligation to hold you responsible.
- mikejb 8y ago
  > You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. How many ties will those companies have to cut then in the US? Reacting to complex situations with simple solutions will result in unexpected and unintended consequences.
- romwell 8y ago
  >The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. Yes, that's the logic behind Zero Tolerance everything, and also FOSTA/SESTA. It makes one look/feel good to say it. The downside? It doesn't help address the problem. Again, effect of the ban on women is missing from your answer.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The effect of the ban on women will be nearly nil, since the system was in place before apps existed. If there is any difference, it'll be positive, because the "guardians" won't bother setting the notifications up. And comparing this to FOSTA/SESTA doesn't make any sense. Those laws didn't ban something that is unambiguously evil - they banned a whole bunch of random stuff under the guise of targeting sex trafficking. The equivalent here would be if I was demanding that Google and Apple ban all tracking apps in general, on the basis that they're used by "guardians".
    - romwell 8y ago
      If the effect on women will be nearly nil, then does it all become a PR question? In that case, couldn't it be useful to keep the app if only to keep track of how many people this policy affects? I drew analogies to FOSTA because even FOSTA's intended effect (as stated) was negative. Yes, it actually made it a bit more difficult to do sex trafficking online (along with adversely affecting tons of other people). As a result, traffickers are harder to catch. The "don't deal with the bad guys" approach sounds great, but even an embargo doesn't often work: see what years of sanctions got us with Cuba, NK, and Iran (in terms of improving the lives of people in those countries).
buboard 8y ago
They can easily offer the app as a web app (i think it is already a web app) And actually you are wrong, without tracking women have at least a chance to escape undetected
- romwell 8y ago
  >They can easily offer the app as a web app (i think it is already a web app) More details on this: what does the native app offer? What would be the effect of banning the app? >And actually you are wrong, without tracking women have at least a chance to escape undetected My understanding is that without tracking, women are not free to travel in SA. And escape... where? Still, it's not tracking that we are discussing here, but effects of the ban.
  - buboard 8y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/aorrb8/apple_google_criticised_for_saudi_absher_app_that/eg3rgm5/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/aorrb8/apple_googl... > The app doesn’t track women, the government facilities do so (e.g. security checks at airports), they send SMS messages to the guardian when his minor son/daughter or his wife/mother/adult daughter leaves the country through a government check point.

ALittleLight 8y ago

It's certainly a question worth pondering. I don't see why the default assumption should be that this app is a net good though. I wonder too, if this app didn't exist, and they didn't let women travel at all, if their society would pay a cost that would eventually become untenable. Thus, while it's possible this would be bad in the short term (not demonstrated though) it's possible that it would also be good in the long term (also not demonstrated). In my opinion, without really compelling evidence, we should opt not to participate in the subjegation of women.

romwell 8y ago
>I don't see why the default assumption should be that this app is a net good though. It should not, and I agree with your assessment. Wish there was more thought in the same vein. It's just that women are missing from discussion of the effects of the course of action taken. People talk about how it would affect market share, but not day-to-day life of women in other threads.

int_19h 8y ago

The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. If they still do it without your help, that's unfortunate; and yes, you should probably do something to stop it. But if they do it with your help, then you are directly responsible for it, and the rest of us have a moral obligation to hold you responsible.

mikejb 8y ago
> You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. How many ties will those companies have to cut then in the US? Reacting to complex situations with simple solutions will result in unexpected and unintended consequences.
romwell 8y ago
>The logic here is very, very simple: You don't help bad people do bad things. Period. End of discussion. Yes, that's the logic behind Zero Tolerance everything, and also FOSTA/SESTA. It makes one look/feel good to say it. The downside? It doesn't help address the problem. Again, effect of the ban on women is missing from your answer.
- int_19h 8y ago
  The effect of the ban on women will be nearly nil, since the system was in place before apps existed. If there is any difference, it'll be positive, because the "guardians" won't bother setting the notifications up. And comparing this to FOSTA/SESTA doesn't make any sense. Those laws didn't ban something that is unambiguously evil - they banned a whole bunch of random stuff under the guise of targeting sex trafficking. The equivalent here would be if I was demanding that Google and Apple ban all tracking apps in general, on the basis that they're used by "guardians".
  - romwell 8y ago
    If the effect on women will be nearly nil, then does it all become a PR question? In that case, couldn't it be useful to keep the app if only to keep track of how many people this policy affects? I drew analogies to FOSTA because even FOSTA's intended effect (as stated) was negative. Yes, it actually made it a bit more difficult to do sex trafficking online (along with adversely affecting tons of other people). As a result, traffickers are harder to catch. The "don't deal with the bad guys" approach sounds great, but even an embargo doesn't often work: see what years of sanctions got us with Cuba, NK, and Iran (in terms of improving the lives of people in those countries).

buboard 8y ago

They can easily offer the app as a web app (i think it is already a web app) And actually you are wrong, without tracking women have at least a chance to escape undetected

romwell 8y ago
>They can easily offer the app as a web app (i think it is already a web app) More details on this: what does the native app offer? What would be the effect of banning the app? >And actually you are wrong, without tracking women have at least a chance to escape undetected My understanding is that without tracking, women are not free to travel in SA. And escape... where? Still, it's not tracking that we are discussing here, but effects of the ban.
- buboard 8y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/aorrb8/apple_google_criticised_for_saudi_absher_app_that/eg3rgm5/?context=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/aorrb8/apple_googl... > The app doesn’t track women, the government facilities do so (e.g. security checks at airports), they send SMS messages to the guardian when his minor son/daughter or his wife/mother/adult daughter leaves the country through a government check point.