8 ms·

Serious question: Would you be willing to make this same argument for a (hypothetical) Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks? I think it's pre

Serious question: Would you be willing to make this same argument for a (hypothetical) Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks? I think it's pretty reasonable for the court of modern political opinion to pass judgement on the more egregious examples of injustice in the world. Yes, morality is relative, but there's a strong majority opinion on this - especially in the countries that build the technology platforms we're talking about. Apple & Google should yank the apps, and we should hold their feet to the fire until they do.

xyzzy123 8y ago
Ouch. There’s been a lot to think about over the course of this thread. I think South Africa is a good example because there were wide ranging trade sanctions against them during Apartheid which could have supported actions such as yanking government apps as a matter of international agreement. Overall though I don’t think it’s a good idea for FAANG companies to unilaterally wade into foreign policy or cultural influence even more than they already do. Other commenters have made some good points that the platforms are already very not neutral, pointing to adult apps and arbitrary TOS violations as app store death penalty. I agree that this is true but I remain broadly opposed to the idea that we must stop others from running code that we don’t like. Overall it doesn’t seem like the right mechanism to do politics.
wongarsu 8y ago
> Would you be willing to make this same argument for a (hypothetical) Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks? Yes (but only begrudgingly). Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation. That means within their borders they can do as they please, even if we don't like what they do. We fought one of the most devastating wars in history (the 30 years war [1]) trying to control what other people think, and at the end everyone agreed that sovereignty is a great concept [2][3]. Using our influence over Apple and Google to project power against Saudi Arabia and try to force them to agree to different moral norms is in stark contrast to the idea of sovereignty and signals to everyone else that that kind of behaviour is ok. That's how you get cold and hot wars. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty
- glangdale 8y ago
  I like the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow is endangered by Apple or Google deciding to make business decisions that pertain to Saudi Arabia. I'm also enjoying your Total Commitment to this principle, extending to guarded support for the hypothetical "Apartheid Black Management App". The fact that you're talking in hushed tones of reverence about the glorious principle of sovereignty in a discussion of Saudi Arabia is really just the icing on the cake.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    You didn't provide any actual arguments, instead just dismissing what I said out of hand (in a needlessly snarky way).
    - glangdale 8y ago
      I would imagine that you could have read between the lines here, but since you apparently can't.... How about - 1 - the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with the behavior of private companies or 'influence' within other countries, which has been rampant ever since, and 2 - Saudi Arabia has been one of the top offenders in both dodgy 'influence' in other countries and outright intervention (including things that actually violate the principles you set out) ever since it has been around. So it's pretty funny to imagine that KSA should be handled with kid gloves in this situation, especially when we're talking about the behavior of private companies.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Maybe it's a LaRouche-ist.
  - xkapastel 8y ago
    What exactly are you trying to say? This post is nothing but empty snark. For example, are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign nation?
    - glangdale 8y ago
tathougies 8y ago
The issue with such an app is not the fact that it is being hosted but rather the fact it was created. Going after amazon will not change the fact that the Sauds think this app is moral. In fact it only distracts from the issue. Amazon is a company and wants profit. Saudi arabia is a sovereign country, which means it is the only entity involved that can truly enforce its morality. That anyone would think to first criticize Amazon is somewhat ridiculous in this context
- fipple 8y ago
  It’s not that Amazon is primarily culpable, it is that a person in the US has more leverage, however minimal, over Amazon than over the Saudi king.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  What do you think of companies that used slave labour legally or use child labour legally? They want profit, and it’s legal. Does that make it ok?
endymi0n 8y ago
Serious question: Where do you start and where do you end then with majority opinions? If this app is a clear case, how about Erdogan‘s secret police app? So if Islamism isn‘t okay, what about Zionism? Just Israel’s right to defend itself or not so sure anymore? Who holds Googles and Facebooks feet to the fire for collaborating with PRISM, giving your nude selfies to NSA personnel? [1] Is there a majority opinion this is okay if some amount of terrorism or "terrorism" (depending who you ask) is thwarted? IMHO, the answer here is there‘s simply no easy answers here, and if there‘s just one thing to learn, it‘s that the world is a place with a lit of different opinions and values. [1] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/snowden-nude-sexually-compromising-photos-guardian-interview/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/snowden-nude-sexually-compro...
vkazanov 8y ago
I think the more important question is: whose "modern political opinion" is the decisive one. Notice that even relatively politically close countries have diverting understanding of important cultural issues. Think about sex-related subcultures in Japan and, say, US.
- leoh 8y ago
  What sex-related subcultures in Japan are you talking about?
  - jack1243star 8y ago
    Not OP, but possibly illustrated child porn? Perfectly legal in Japan if censored correctly, illegal in France, Germany and other countries. See also the Mastodon and Pawoo split.
tokyodude 8y ago
I think Google should yank the app. I think Apple should be forced to carry the app or open their platform. Android users can install whatever they want. Apple should not be in a position to prevent iPhone users from doing the same. To me if BMW said "You can buy this car but you're not allowed to drive to to Compton Los Angeles". The answer should not be "If you want to drive to Compton buy some other brand". It should be "Those terms are Illegal" Unlike Google, Apple claims total dominion over what apps you can run on your iOS device. They have that control over 1.3 billion devices. That the largest amount of censorship control ever in the hands of few people. Political apps are blocked. Sex positive porn apps are blocked. I get that Apple shouldn't be forced to carry those apps on their store but until they provide alternatives I think they're in the wrong. People generally respond to this they want Apple to censor their apps. That's not an argument for not opening the platform. You are always free to install only Apple approved apps regardless of if the platform is open or not.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  > I think Apple should be forced to carry the app > I get that Apple shouldn't be forced to carry those apps This is a confusing stance.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 8y ago
    It's only confusing if you leave out the context as you did. The parent's statement was that Apple should be forced to carry the app, unless they're willing to open the platform so people can sideload their own apps without going through Apple's store.
- sneak 8y ago
  > Apple claims total dominion over what apps you can run on your iOS device This stopped being true some years ago. You can build any app you wish from source and Xcode will sign it and you can run it on your iOS device—no approval or payment required.
philwelch 8y ago
That's a poor analogy, because in apartheid, individual black people did not have individual white "guardians" responsible for supervising their movements and behavior. Would you be willing to make the same argument you're making for a similar app that allows parents to supervise their children? Would it depend on the age of the child in question? And, for a more sticky question: even in the case of this app, does the consent of the supervised woman matter? Or are we willing to make the stronger claim that Saudi women are incapable of consent because they live in a strongly patriarchal society? Should we extend the same treatment to other instances of gender-specific religious and cultural practices?
- stickfigure 8y ago
  It's not a perfect analogy; a "slave management app" just seemed overly anachronistic. I think the point is clear enough. Would you be willing to make the same argument you're making for a similar app that allows parents to supervise their children? Parents get broad supervisory powers over their children. That seems pretty universal and uncontroversial. Would it depend on the age of the child in question? Of course. The exact age of majority is not agreed upon even among the most progressive societies. I think we can all agree that parents should be able to make travel decisions for a 12yo. A 17yo is more complicated. does the consent of the supervised woman matter? This is a specious line of argument, since the app is being used against women who do not consent.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I wouldn't object if Apple and Google did withdraw the app because of these concerns, but there are still legitimate concerns about the degree to which commercial involvement in places with significantly different cultural values should be affected by cultural differences.

xyzzy123 8y ago

Ouch. There’s been a lot to think about over the course of this thread. I think South Africa is a good example because there were wide ranging trade sanctions against them during Apartheid which could have supported actions such as yanking government apps as a matter of international agreement. Overall though I don’t think it’s a good idea for FAANG companies to unilaterally wade into foreign policy or cultural influence even more than they already do. Other commenters have made some good points that the platforms are already very not neutral, pointing to adult apps and arbitrary TOS violations as app store death penalty. I agree that this is true but I remain broadly opposed to the idea that we must stop others from running code that we don’t like. Overall it doesn’t seem like the right mechanism to do politics.

wongarsu 8y ago

> Would you be willing to make this same argument for a (hypothetical) Apartheid-era app that enabled whites to manage blacks? Yes (but only begrudgingly). Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation. That means within their borders they can do as they please, even if we don't like what they do. We fought one of the most devastating wars in history (the 30 years war [1]) trying to control what other people think, and at the end everyone agreed that sovereignty is a great concept [2][3]. Using our influence over Apple and Google to project power against Saudi Arabia and try to force them to agree to different moral norms is in stark contrast to the idea of sovereignty and signals to everyone else that that kind of behaviour is ok. That's how you get cold and hot wars. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty

glangdale 8y ago
I like the idea that the Peace of Westphalia somehow is endangered by Apple or Google deciding to make business decisions that pertain to Saudi Arabia. I'm also enjoying your Total Commitment to this principle, extending to guarded support for the hypothetical "Apartheid Black Management App". The fact that you're talking in hushed tones of reverence about the glorious principle of sovereignty in a discussion of Saudi Arabia is really just the icing on the cake.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  You didn't provide any actual arguments, instead just dismissing what I said out of hand (in a needlessly snarky way).
  - glangdale 8y ago
    I would imagine that you could have read between the lines here, but since you apparently can't.... How about - 1 - the Peace of Westphalia has nothing to do with the behavior of private companies or 'influence' within other countries, which has been rampant ever since, and 2 - Saudi Arabia has been one of the top offenders in both dodgy 'influence' in other countries and outright intervention (including things that actually violate the principles you set out) ever since it has been around. So it's pretty funny to imagine that KSA should be handled with kid gloves in this situation, especially when we're talking about the behavior of private companies.
- pvg 8y ago
  Maybe it's a LaRouche-ist.
- xkapastel 8y ago
  What exactly are you trying to say? This post is nothing but empty snark. For example, are you trying to say that Saudi Arabia is not a sovereign nation?
  - glangdale 8y ago

tathougies 8y ago

The issue with such an app is not the fact that it is being hosted but rather the fact it was created. Going after amazon will not change the fact that the Sauds think this app is moral. In fact it only distracts from the issue. Amazon is a company and wants profit. Saudi arabia is a sovereign country, which means it is the only entity involved that can truly enforce its morality. That anyone would think to first criticize Amazon is somewhat ridiculous in this context

fipple 8y ago
It’s not that Amazon is primarily culpable, it is that a person in the US has more leverage, however minimal, over Amazon than over the Saudi king.
lostlogin 8y ago
What do you think of companies that used slave labour legally or use child labour legally? They want profit, and it’s legal. Does that make it ok?

endymi0n 8y ago

Serious question: Where do you start and where do you end then with majority opinions? If this app is a clear case, how about Erdogan‘s secret police app? So if Islamism isn‘t okay, what about Zionism? Just Israel’s right to defend itself or not so sure anymore? Who holds Googles and Facebooks feet to the fire for collaborating with PRISM, giving your nude selfies to NSA personnel? [1] Is there a majority opinion this is okay if some amount of terrorism or "terrorism" (depending who you ask) is thwarted? IMHO, the answer here is there‘s simply no easy answers here, and if there‘s just one thing to learn, it‘s that the world is a place with a lit of different opinions and values. [1] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/snowden-nude-sexually-compromising-photos-guardian-interview/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/snowden-nude-sexually-compro...

vkazanov 8y ago

I think the more important question is: whose "modern political opinion" is the decisive one. Notice that even relatively politically close countries have diverting understanding of important cultural issues. Think about sex-related subcultures in Japan and, say, US.

leoh 8y ago
What sex-related subcultures in Japan are you talking about?
- jack1243star 8y ago
  Not OP, but possibly illustrated child porn? Perfectly legal in Japan if censored correctly, illegal in France, Germany and other countries. See also the Mastodon and Pawoo split.

tokyodude 8y ago

I think Google should yank the app. I think Apple should be forced to carry the app or open their platform. Android users can install whatever they want. Apple should not be in a position to prevent iPhone users from doing the same. To me if BMW said "You can buy this car but you're not allowed to drive to to Compton Los Angeles". The answer should not be "If you want to drive to Compton buy some other brand". It should be "Those terms are Illegal" Unlike Google, Apple claims total dominion over what apps you can run on your iOS device. They have that control over 1.3 billion devices. That the largest amount of censorship control ever in the hands of few people. Political apps are blocked. Sex positive porn apps are blocked. I get that Apple shouldn't be forced to carry those apps on their store but until they provide alternatives I think they're in the wrong. People generally respond to this they want Apple to censor their apps. That's not an argument for not opening the platform. You are always free to install only Apple approved apps regardless of if the platform is open or not.

zimpenfish 8y ago
> I think Apple should be forced to carry the app > I get that Apple shouldn't be forced to carry those apps This is a confusing stance.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 8y ago
  It's only confusing if you leave out the context as you did. The parent's statement was that Apple should be forced to carry the app, unless they're willing to open the platform so people can sideload their own apps without going through Apple's store.
sneak 8y ago
> Apple claims total dominion over what apps you can run on your iOS device This stopped being true some years ago. You can build any app you wish from source and Xcode will sign it and you can run it on your iOS device—no approval or payment required.

philwelch 8y ago

That's a poor analogy, because in apartheid, individual black people did not have individual white "guardians" responsible for supervising their movements and behavior. Would you be willing to make the same argument you're making for a similar app that allows parents to supervise their children? Would it depend on the age of the child in question? And, for a more sticky question: even in the case of this app, does the consent of the supervised woman matter? Or are we willing to make the stronger claim that Saudi women are incapable of consent because they live in a strongly patriarchal society? Should we extend the same treatment to other instances of gender-specific religious and cultural practices?

stickfigure 8y ago
It's not a perfect analogy; a "slave management app" just seemed overly anachronistic. I think the point is clear enough. Would you be willing to make the same argument you're making for a similar app that allows parents to supervise their children? Parents get broad supervisory powers over their children. That seems pretty universal and uncontroversial. Would it depend on the age of the child in question? Of course. The exact age of majority is not agreed upon even among the most progressive societies. I think we can all agree that parents should be able to make travel decisions for a 12yo. A 17yo is more complicated. does the consent of the supervised woman matter? This is a specious line of argument, since the app is being used against women who do not consent.
- philwelch 8y ago
  I wouldn't object if Apple and Google did withdraw the app because of these concerns, but there are still legitimate concerns about the degree to which commercial involvement in places with significantly different cultural values should be affected by cultural differences.