4 ms·

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 sug

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

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.