4 ms·

I think that could be a valid choice for Apple to make, and I think reasonable people could disagree about which choice Apple ended up making. But it seems ver

by baddox 7y ago

I think that could be a valid choice for Apple to make, and I think reasonable people could disagree about which choice Apple ended up making. But it seems very plausible to me that Apple was presented with credible information that this app was being used to organize violent attacks and that Apple made a reasonable choice to ban the app according to Apple's policies about following local laws as well as Apple's internal policies about apps causing harm. I think that can be the case regardless of anyone at Apple's views about the merits of the Hong Kong protests as a whole.

shakna 7y ago
Absolutely. The problem with Apple's, and many other companies, early response policies is it depends on the source of truth, such as the police, not being complicit. If they always wait for a court order, PR disasters happen, and polticians dredge up 'think of the children' arguments. If they don't wait for an order they can become part of the machinery of ill-intentioned polticial or commercial forces. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. However, I still think waiting for an order, especially in tense environments, is the right moral choice. I concede it probably isn't the right economic choice a lot of the time.
- truth0seeker 7y ago
  I totally agree. But there is a point you may not aware. Government, law enforcement and court are not separated in China, they all belonging to the same central government. So if you really want a court order, they’ll issue one quickly. That’s the tricky situation. Companies must obey local laws, but local laws are built on behalf of central government, and court exists for protecting central government.
  - Faark 7y ago
    No problem with that. I presume gp focused on a court order since that's the way it works in his local culture. The important part is Apple not acting as their own arbitrator. If the order came from the HK gov, citizens know who is responsible for it and can act accordingly. And I'd expect this to be the reason Apple received pressure to remove it "by themselves".
  - shakna 7y ago
    That's fine, but Apple acted without one being issued. Which made them the arbiter, rather than the Chinese officials.
andromeduck 7y ago
Against individual officers though? That is what's absurd. And what of Twitter and Telegram and Messenger and Gmail and Weechat and Outlook? This is also the same organization whose spokesperson that called a protestor being brutalized by officers a "yellow object" and who have been routinely documented fabricating evidence. Taking their word at face value is patently absurd. Tim's statement doesn't add up.

by baddox 7y ago

shakna 7y ago

Absolutely. The problem with Apple's, and many other companies, early response policies is it depends on the source of truth, such as the police, not being complicit. If they always wait for a court order, PR disasters happen, and polticians dredge up 'think of the children' arguments. If they don't wait for an order they can become part of the machinery of ill-intentioned polticial or commercial forces. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. However, I still think waiting for an order, especially in tense environments, is the right moral choice. I concede it probably isn't the right economic choice a lot of the time.

truth0seeker 7y ago
I totally agree. But there is a point you may not aware. Government, law enforcement and court are not separated in China, they all belonging to the same central government. So if you really want a court order, they’ll issue one quickly. That’s the tricky situation. Companies must obey local laws, but local laws are built on behalf of central government, and court exists for protecting central government.
- Faark 7y ago
  No problem with that. I presume gp focused on a court order since that's the way it works in his local culture. The important part is Apple not acting as their own arbitrator. If the order came from the HK gov, citizens know who is responsible for it and can act accordingly. And I'd expect this to be the reason Apple received pressure to remove it "by themselves".
- shakna 7y ago
  That's fine, but Apple acted without one being issued. Which made them the arbiter, rather than the Chinese officials.

andromeduck 7y ago

Against individual officers though? That is what's absurd. And what of Twitter and Telegram and Messenger and Gmail and Weechat and Outlook? This is also the same organization whose spokesperson that called a protestor being brutalized by officers a "yellow object" and who have been routinely documented fabricating evidence. Taking their word at face value is patently absurd. Tim's statement doesn't add up.