4 ms·

If the information they have recieved is indeed credible as they state. Then the users who would be grateful are the police officers who were targeted in violen

by nabdab 7y ago

If the information they have recieved is indeed credible as they state. Then the users who would be grateful are the police officers who were targeted in violent assaults and the locations that where vandalized. Apple is not in a unique position to judge who’s “the good guys” and who’s the “bad guys” they recognized the app was being used as a tool of violence and removed it because they did not wish to distribute tools used for violence.

oldmanthrowit 7y ago
If ever there were an appropriate time to invoke Godwin's law.
thinkingemote 7y ago
The key bit is what is credible. Because it looks like it's the very same organisation which is against the demonstrators.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > The key bit is what is credible. I strongly disagree. Our tools should not be making judgements on what is credible, or what is good, and based on that decide if they will serve or betray their owner. Power is already far too centralized.
deogeo 7y ago
> Then the users who would be grateful are the police officers The police officers benefit regardless of if they are Apple's users, so to say the move is to protect "our users" is deceptive. They would have to say it is to protect the police and/or Hong Kong residents. But if they had phrased it that way, it would be obvious they made a choice - to put the safety of the police above that of their users. > Apple is not in a unique position to judge who’s “the good guys” and who’s the “bad guys” But they are judging! They judged that it is better the protesters face police violence, than the other way around. They weren't legally compelled to remove the app - just criticized for allowing it. (Mind you they were criticized by the same police force that's preventing paramedics from treating injured protesters, but my opinion wouldn't change even if the police were perfect and the protesters pure evil. A phone is a tool, and tools should not betray their users.) Now I wouldn't blame them too much if they had merely followed the law, even if the law is unethical. Usually when corporations break the law, it's to be even more unethical, not less, so I'm in no hurry of asking them to play vigilante, especially not on foreign soil. But they deliberately disempowered their users by locking them in a walled garden, so they should get a big part of the blame when their users suffer for it.

by nabdab 7y ago

oldmanthrowit 7y ago

If ever there were an appropriate time to invoke Godwin's law.

thinkingemote 7y ago

The key bit is what is credible. Because it looks like it's the very same organisation which is against the demonstrators.

deogeo 7y ago
> The key bit is what is credible. I strongly disagree. Our tools should not be making judgements on what is credible, or what is good, and based on that decide if they will serve or betray their owner. Power is already far too centralized.

deogeo 7y ago

> Then the users who would be grateful are the police officers The police officers benefit regardless of if they are Apple's users, so to say the move is to protect "our users" is deceptive. They would have to say it is to protect the police and/or Hong Kong residents. But if they had phrased it that way, it would be obvious they made a choice - to put the safety of the police above that of their users. > Apple is not in a unique position to judge who’s “the good guys” and who’s the “bad guys” But they are judging! They judged that it is better the protesters face police violence, than the other way around. They weren't legally compelled to remove the app - just criticized for allowing it. (Mind you they were criticized by the same police force that's preventing paramedics from treating injured protesters, but my opinion wouldn't change even if the police were perfect and the protesters pure evil. A phone is a tool, and tools should not betray their users.) Now I wouldn't blame them too much if they had merely followed the law, even if the law is unethical. Usually when corporations break the law, it's to be even more unethical, not less, so I'm in no hurry of asking them to play vigilante, especially not on foreign soil. But they deliberately disempowered their users by locking them in a walled garden, so they should get a big part of the blame when their users suffer for it.