9 ms·
Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 ch
by DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 channels/groups specifically - what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram?
And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist groups - or for a more-fair comparison: Awful groups on WhatsApp.
If there's one thing worse than burdensome walled-garden rules, it's inconsistent enforcement of them.
- threeseed 6y agoCan you point me to similar Facebook/Whatsapp groups ? Because they are usually pretty aggressive about acting on inciteful content.
- PureParadigm 6y agoHow about we consider any website accessible through Safari? Is Apple going to start blocking users from viewing those?
- paulcarroty 6y agoI'll not be surprised. Apple always wants total control on their platforms. Obviously sometimes its plays against them.
- barumi 6y ago> Obviously sometimes its plays against them. Also known as accountability for their own actions.
- oarsinsync 6y agoThe opening steps of that are already in place. Apple is already blocking content in safari by default. It’s currently doing so in the name of privacy, and chances are that what it’s currently doing is ultimately user positive. The mechanism is already in place and ready to be expanded to include anything more as necessary.
- spacemanmatt 6y agoI doubt it. Maybe they crack down on an app or two when they feel like it but Apple aren't moving the needle on incitement. Plus they make and sell communication apps subject to carrying the exact same sentiments. Content policing a chat app is asinine.
- pleasebegood 6y agoIt's not. They don't allow NSFW apps on iOS even if it's user generated. They have to make it explicitly opt in with significant restrictions. Apple can do whatever they want on their platform. I wouldn't want to be involved in something illegal such as above when using an app on iOS accidentally.
- spacemanmatt 6y agoTelegram is Apple's own platform? Are you saying Apple is involved in something illegal by allowing Telegram to distribute software through the App Store, since people use it to dox Putin-aligned police in Belarus?
- pleasebegood 6y agoThere is already a precedent for apple to not allow apps that doesn't align with its content policies even if user generated. Anything NSFW is not allowed by default and without explicit warnings. Porn is not allowed. Drug stores are not allowed. Gab is not allowed. Imageboards aren't. Why would this be different? Apple owns the app store and the iOS platform. They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content. Customers expect that from apple. I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.
- baybal2 6y ago> clicking on content If you believe democracy to be unsightly and wrongful, then your believes are reactionary, and must be subject to rectification.
- smolder 6y agoNo, Facebook is not aggressive in moderating anything except their PR. It's full of bots, full of disinformation, and full of hate-filled groups. You have to be smart enough not to use it to be naive enough to believe they police any aspect of it adequately.
- CydeWeys 6y agoThe worst ones are all private, so they can't be pointed to. But we do find out about their existence after they're broken up (by law enforcement action, not Facebook). E.g. the domestic terrorists that were planning to overthrow the Michigan State government were coordinating via private Facebook group. So there's one example for you.
- Iv 6y agoI would be surprised if this were not a demand from the Belarus government, threatening sanctions on Apple, possibly with Russian support. The Belarus government can just block the App store entirely and may, if Apple does not comply.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago> The Belarus government can just block the App store entirely and may, if Apple does not comply. So what??? Protestors are being imprisoned and tortured, they actually hanged protest organizers from trees, as a scare tactic, does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this? It is ethically abhorrent, disgusting and beyond terrifying. If the team responsible for this at Apple is reading this thread, you should know you have blood on your hands.
- zepto 6y agoAre you planning to dox Apple employees? That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands. It seems like a little much to call Apple an ‘enabler’ for being against doxing. Just because protesters use a tactic doesn’t mean everyone needs to support it, especially if it is a tacit call to violence.
- croissants 6y agoIs the argument you're making "if you see someone doing something bad, you should not only call it out as such, but also be willing to do something bad to stop it"? That doesn't make sense to me unless there's really no other option to prevent a much greater evil. I think we're still at the point in this story where normal consumer and media pressure can be effective.
- zepto 6y agoI don’t know why you would think it’s my argument. It seems a lot closer to the argument DoingIsLearning is making about why “Apple employees” have blood on their hands.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago> And why Telegram in particular? It ended up as the main way Belarussian protesters organize themselves. TG is a huge target for their government and I would not be surprised if Apple is being pressured by them.
- saagarjha 6y agoApple painted this target on their own back when they decided they’d be the sole distributor of software for the platform.
- qz2 6y agoThat’s an extremely good point.
- oefrha 6y agoIt’s not like Indian/U.S. government didn’t ask Google to take down TikTok from the Play Store. As long as they operate an app store, they will be a target. Just might not be the only target.
- VHRanger 6y agoYou can sideload tiktok on your android if you're so inclined.
- zepto 6y agoSo what? If that was a practical means of installing it for most people, the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
- extropy 6y agoThat is a way more difficult target to hit. People can follow a 3 step instruction easily enough. That's kinda the point that having a single controlling entity makes the ecosystem vulnerable to this kind of pressure.
- whyoh 6y agoWell, one technical reason is that WhatsApp groups — unlike Telegram groups — use encryption. So Facebook doesn't know what goes on inside them.
- afwe 6y agoThey can see the title and possibly the picture, though. (People who know this use inconspicuous names and pictures)
- vetinari 6y agoThat's just a theater. If anybody can join a group, there must be a way to distribute the keys to those who joined. Anybody can get a key then, including Whatsapp/Facebook.
- tinus_hn 6y agoThe app makes sure only the people it thinks are in the channel get the keys. If you turn on the security notifications you can see how it works, you get a message when someone gets a new phone, that indicates they got a new key. You can even check if it matches up if you meet in person or if you communicated using another medium.
- ffpip 6y agoThese new people cannot access older messages. e2ee
- 6y ago
- afwe 6y ago>Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? The App Store is theirs and they will kick you out if they don't like you. Isn't that good enough?
- hutzlibu 6y agoMore than enough. It should be noted in bold writing on the TOS, though.
- cybrox 6y agoDoesn't change the fact that their behaviour itself is more than shady...
- megous 6y agoApp store may be theirs, but this is like after you install some third party e-mail client on your phone, Apple trying to force their way into telling you what e-mails you can receive, or who you can communicate with. (by proxy) Surely that's not reasonable. What does ownership of the phone mean then?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThey could. They have the power to. Reasonable doesn't enter into it. That's why some of us object to their control over access to software for all their customers. I personally will not buy Apple products for this reason.
- tripzilch 6y agoThat's just why they can. But no it's not good enough. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's right.
- swiley 6y agoEveryone else's iphone isn't theirs though. Apple's abuse of their users is directly contributing to the consolidation of power in the world, which will likely lead to violence against and abuse of poor people.
- threatofrain 6y agoApple operates in Belarus and must respond to the pressures of the government. Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off.
- saagarjha 6y agoApple has tried in the past, of course. I believe the policy they say they take is “we respect the law in the country we operate in”. It’s not clear if this was something that the law mandated; if it wasn’t to be morally consistent they should have pushed back like they have in the US.
- deathgrips 6y agoAmericans have the right to tell the government to back off when the government breaks the law. We shouldn't hold everyone to the same low standard as Belarus.
- Sargos 6y ago> Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off. Are you sure? I remember people backing Apple when they were protecting users phones from FBI hacking.
- marketingPro 6y agoThat was the marketing, not reality. The reality was their phone did get "hacked" and Apple participated in PRISM.
- threatofrain 6y agoI don't think Apple has the strength to tell the US government to back off, and I don't think Americans think so either. When Apple goes through the American legal system, that's the power of the American judiciary. But Belarus?
- blazespin 6y agoTo be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime. There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
- barry-cotter 6y agoYou may not know this but the fire in a crowded theater case was about criminalizing opposition to the draft during WWI. Criminalizing speech always ends with the powers that be using it to stop people saying things inconvenient to them. One year it’s Obama prosecuting whistleblowers, the next it’s Trump. Any power the government has will be used and “abused” almost immediately. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... > Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: >> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> One year it’s Obama prosecuting whistleblowers, the next it’s Trump I agree with you, but I hope you're not making a false-equivalence between Trump and Obama, or that the Obama administration's actions against free-speech had the same motivations - and lack of conscience - as the Trump administration's. It would be much fairer to compare Bush Jr to Trump - it was under Bush Jr we got "free speech zones", for example.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
- halflings 6y ago> what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram Exactly! If they want to start policing all content generated through apps that can be installed on iOS... they'll start getting millions of takedown requests from governments around the world. Very weird decision strategically, and ofc very questionable morally.
- Anon1096 6y agoWith this kind of policy Apple's hypocrisy really shines bright. An app like Reddit is allowed, meanwhile Telegram not only has to not show porn channels to users, but now has to ban content from the whole platform or be removed from the App Store. On Reddit, there by far more porn accessible to users, and probably more "incitement of violence" too. There's no way to support Apple here. Just another example of the tyranny of the App Store.
- Macha 6y agoYet at the same time it was apple and app store policies that apparently drove the decision to ban porn from Tumblr. If Reddit ever goes on a similar decline, I could see Reddit being suddenly held to those guidelines too.
- nobody9999 6y ago>Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? I imagine that it's through the terms of the contract signed by Telegram to be allowed into the App Store. That Apple is flexing its market share (and walled garden) to enforce those terms on Telegram isn't even unusual. But that doesn't make it ethical or right.