4 ms·

> And in one fell swoop, Apple has made it effectively impossible to install this app on your phone You mean years ago? Not that I support this move by Apple,

• Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  It's not different. The societal impact is just larger this time around. Apple's position was never okay, and I hope this situation makes more people realize that.
  • davrosthedalek 7y ago
    Ah, come on, there are reasons which are less bad: Not accepting an app because it steals cc data. Virus. Etc. Let's not pretend this is business as usual, however morally bad the usual business already is.
    • Wowfunhappy 7y ago
      But isn't this all the same thing? Apple made a decision: "This form of speech is dangerous, so we're going to decide what our customers are allowed to see." And so Apple blocks both dangerous speech, and safe speech that could harm Apple's revenue, and safe speech that powerful individuals dislike. People always seem to think of this as a false dichotomy, so I want to emphasize again that I think Apple's curated App Store is great. It just shouldn't be the only way to acquire software.
      • davrosthedalek 7y ago
        I don't think it's the same thing. Apple has at least three options: - Have a store with, say, quality control, and the option to side-load - Have a store with "quality control" (and, as I see it, some rather large levers to fight competition), no option to side-load, but don't bow to state actors - same, but bow to state actors. I wish it's the first, I thought it's the second, but we now see it's the third. I think the the third is worse than the second option.
        • Wowfunhappy 7y ago
          But see, by saying "don't bow to state actors", you're making a moral judgement about when it is and is not okay to bow to pressure. Was it okay when Apple got rid of Alex Jones's app? He was spreading misinformation about vaccines, that's pretty darn dangerous. I guess you could argue that wasn't due to a "state actor", but is anti-Hong-Kong pressure from Chinese citizens all that different? And here's the thing—I do think platform holders sometimes need to make moral judgements, and I'm glad Alex Jones is banned from the App Store. I'm significantly less glad that it's completely impossible to install his app anymore. It's the difference between not actively giving someone a megaphone, and actually banning speech.
          • davrosthedalek 7y ago
            I fully agree that solution 1 would be much, much better. But I don't think I have to make a moral judgement when it is OK and when it is not OK: let's assume I think it's not OK in all cases, then it's still worse if they do it against Axel Jones AND HK than if they do it only against Axel Jones OR the HK. In any case, I'm allowed to make a moral judgement. We do this all the time: Breaking the law is bad, but stealing is less "bad" than killing. And so on.
          • derefr 7y ago
            > I guess you could argue that wasn't due to a "state actor", but is anti-Hong-Kong pressure from Chinese citizens all that different? The difference is between taking something down because you agree with the rationale the entity-that-wants-something-taken-down gives you, such that you'd do it even without that entity in existence as long as you knew the information they told you; vs. being intimidated by that entity into doing so, such that without the entity, you'd have never done anything.
        • Mindwipe 7y ago
          The second is inevitable to the third. This isn't new. Apple has always bowed to state actors in order to damage minorities, literally ever since the app store launched with it's censorship targeting sex workers and sexual minorities on behest of the US government. This one is just more obvious, but not new.
    • bduerst 7y ago
      You can still ban bad actor apps from your app store while still allowing users to opt-in to side loading.