3 ms·

When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the publ

When/if China tries to take Taiwan the systemic suppression of Taiwan's existence and independence to the Chinese people may have played a part in what the public is willing to support. These kinds of things add up and have real effects. If or when China tries to take Taiwan, it will solely be because the US (implicitly or explicitly) withdraws its guarantee that it will use the power of its military to keep Taiwan independent. How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever. yet in countries with real authoritarian governments where the people are at serious risk, where Uigers are put in camps and sterilized (https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c) Apple just 'follows local laws'. This is not a principled position. This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China. Selling e.g. surveillance technology is not equivalent to banning apps or removing an Emoji flag. What can they do? I'm not sure, but they can start with not being complicit in the oppressive laws of authoritarian countries. But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China. Maybe it's too much to ask for western companies to support human rights everywhere even when there aren't government sanctions to force them, but I wish they did. I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes.

fossuser 6y ago
> "How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever." Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. In fact, the reason the CCP cares so much about suppressing speech and censoring their citizens is because they deeply understand this power. > "This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China." Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. > "But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China." This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. > "I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes." I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. Usually with similar "operating within the legal framework of the country" type of arguments. I don't find it very compelling. I'd also argue Apple specifically is enabling oppression of citizens by suppressing speech, and by handing over iCloud access to the CCP.
- adamlett 6y ago
  Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. Sure, but let's not lose sight of the specifics of what we're discussing. Magnitude matters. The impact of removing the Taiwanese flag from the emoji keyboard is comparable to trying to the impact of using a paddle to change the course of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. No, I don't think it's the same. Not taking measures to prevent authorities from surveilling iPhone users is not the same as assisting with said surveillance. There would be no moral panic if say a US company started selling regular dumb phones in China, even though dumb phones are much easier to snoop on. It would be quite a different story though, if a US company started selling equipment that was specifically designed for large scale surveillance of phone traffic. This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China. I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. I don't think it's fair to label as bad behavior anything you are forced to do, and especially not anything you are forced to not do. Rationalizing bad behavior to me is about making excuses for things that in reality have entirely different motivations. Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I think you make some good points - thanks for the back and forth. I think participating in iCloud access is worse than just providing dumb phones and closer to assisting with surveillance. A similar example would be enabling encryption in the west, but breaking it to comply with local law in authoritarian countries where people need it most. The distinction that they're not the ones specifically doing the surveillance seems less important, they're complicit in it. I agree the flag itself, specifically, is a small thing - but it still bothers me because of the precedent it sets. > "The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China." I struggle with this, maybe that's not so bad? I'd be happy if western companies didn't help to enable authoritarian countries whether in China, the Middle East, or elsewhere. Rule of law should be an important consideration when what you're doing can enable the oppression of a country's citizens. > "Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China. " I think they do gain access to the Chinese market which is a lot - this is why I see them as making excuses for everything else they do that's required for this access.

fossuser 6y ago

> "How the public in the US or anywhere else feels about it, will have no bearing on it whatsoever." Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. In fact, the reason the CCP cares so much about suppressing speech and censoring their citizens is because they deeply understand this power. > "This would be a good argument, if any action of Apple's directly facilitated the oppression of the Uiger or anybody else in China." Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. > "But no matter what Apple decides to do, the outcome will be the same: People living in China will not have access to apps which are illegal in China." This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. > "I think it's crucial to distinguish between those companies who are actively aiding authoritarian regimes by selling them instruments of oppression, and those who are simply not doing anything to thwart those regimes." I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. Usually with similar "operating within the legal framework of the country" type of arguments. I don't find it very compelling. I'd also argue Apple specifically is enabling oppression of citizens by suppressing speech, and by handing over iCloud access to the CCP.

adamlett 6y ago
Public opinion is what translates into political support (or lack of support) for military action. I don't agree that these things are as independent as you suggest. Sure, but let's not lose sight of the specifics of what we're discussing. Magnitude matters. The impact of removing the Taiwanese flag from the emoji keyboard is comparable to trying to the impact of using a paddle to change the course of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. Isn't giving them iCloud access to messages effectively enabling the surveillance? This and the other smaller things suggest a precedent that Apple will do whatever is asked of them and figure out some way to rationalize it. No, I don't think it's the same. Not taking measures to prevent authorities from surveilling iPhone users is not the same as assisting with said surveillance. There would be no moral panic if say a US company started selling regular dumb phones in China, even though dumb phones are much easier to snoop on. It would be quite a different story though, if a US company started selling equipment that was specifically designed for large scale surveillance of phone traffic. This flavor of argument leads to good people doing bad things and telling themselves it's okay. I think it's just a way to rationalize bad behavior (https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html https://zalberico.com/essay/2020/06/13/zoom-in-china.html). The outcome doesn't have to be the same, just because you refuse to enable authoritarian governments doesn't mean you have to do nothing. Even if you do do nothing, at least you're not directly enabling the bad behavior. The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China. I think this is a fair distinction and there is definitely a spectrum of wrongness, but I think companies often use this to rationalize bad behavior. I don't think it's fair to label as bad behavior anything you are forced to do, and especially not anything you are forced to not do. Rationalizing bad behavior to me is about making excuses for things that in reality have entirely different motivations. Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think you make some good points - thanks for the back and forth. I think participating in iCloud access is worse than just providing dumb phones and closer to assisting with surveillance. A similar example would be enabling encryption in the west, but breaking it to comply with local law in authoritarian countries where people need it most. The distinction that they're not the ones specifically doing the surveillance seems less important, they're complicit in it. I agree the flag itself, specifically, is a small thing - but it still bothers me because of the precedent it sets. > "The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning is that no western company should do business in China." I struggle with this, maybe that's not so bad? I'd be happy if western companies didn't help to enable authoritarian countries whether in China, the Middle East, or elsewhere. Rule of law should be an important consideration when what you're doing can enable the oppression of a country's citizens. > "Apple doesn't gain anything from doing any of the things they get criticized for in China. " I think they do gain access to the Chinese market which is a lot - this is why I see them as making excuses for everything else they do that's required for this access.