34 ms·

Google, Apple cave to Pakistan pressure to take down apps by Ahmadiyya Muslims

428 points by shalmanese 6y ago

jacknews 6y ago
Of course I disagree with religious or any other intolerance, but, if you want to do business in Pakistan, you have to follow their rules. It isn't a case of 'caving to pressure', but of 'complying with the law', since the apps are available in other countries, just not in Pakistan, where they are deemed blasphemous, according to their laws.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    But Google leaving hasn’t improved the civil rights situation in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond the scope of Googles.
    - gostsamo 6y ago
      Yes, but Google are not cooperating in that. If you are witnessing a crime that you cannot stop, does it mean that if the criminal gives you a thousand or even a million dollars, you will help them because the crime will happen anyway?
      - threatofrain 6y ago
        When you make a moral call, do you not forecast a fork in the road where you might choose the morally superior destiny? Or does one merely move moral words without the corresponding conviction to move moral results?
        gostsamo 6y ago
        Lots of "moral" in your comment and it crowds the meaning for me. If you are accusing me that I'm preaching and not following my own words, that is a big assumption on your side.
        threatofrain 6y ago
        > 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then. This is what I'm accusing you of. How has Chinese affairs changed for the better after Google?
        sateesh 6y ago
        Not OP. But are you telling since Google's course of action didn't had any impact of altering actions of Chinese government, they (Google) should have stayed put.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        gostsamo 6y ago
        If you see a man being killed, would you go to the killer and say: "This guy is already dead and nobody can prosecute you because there are no sheriff in the county, but if you pay me, I'll help you with your laundry."? Because the question is not if Google can transform CCP, but if it would take part in its crimes. Unfortunately, there is no God or well-supplied jewish conspiracy that sits above us, knows everything, and can deliver direct consequences for our actions. So, we have a choice to make: to act in our direct interest or act against it and bet on a vague conjecture that a collective sacrifice will deliver a better future for everyone. So, asking if the choice of one changes anything is the wrong question in this case. Of course, all things above are not simple. There is the prisoners dilema "if not me, then someone else will do it", and "if it is me, I can prevent even worse from happening", but there is also the "slippery slope" where making small concessions leads to more and more concessions. So, everyone make there choices and we all leave with the consequences.
    - adaml_623 6y ago
      I'm going to disagree with you there. Have civil rights in China improved or worsened? Could they be even worse if Google hadn't left. You're right that this is beyond the scope of Google in the same way that it's beyond the scope of any individual. But together humans can slowly influence other humans and doing the right thing might be a tiny influence but eventually these might add up.
    - koshnaranek 6y ago
      We don't know if Google's actions did make them a tiny bit less bad or not
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    It's always worth remembering: Google couched leaving China in 2010 in humanitarian / ethical terms, but the reason they left was extremely clear: they got hacked internally by Chinese agents using physical access to the intranet. While Google got their security house in order, the most prudent course of action to protect their own company (including their employees) was to cut that physical access. Google restarted business in China around the same time it was able to bring the BeyondCorp initiative online.
- antihero 6y ago
  Perhaps is more companies refused to do business in a country due to diabolical laws, people would start voting against politicians that create diabolical laws.
  - levosmetalo 6y ago
    So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not going all the way down and let those companies write beautiful laws and also enforce them, everywhere in the world?
    - antihero 6y ago
      I think if a law goes against your company values, such as egrariously stomping on human rights, you should have a principle and a backbone and not sacrifice those value to make money.
    - vharuck 6y ago
      >So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not? They, like anyone else traveling or doing business internationally, should decide which countries should be avoided. They can use whatever opinions or judgements they want. It is possible for a huge international corporation to have some sway on a country by not doing business there. But that's not always a bad thing. I'm more afraid of bad governments never suffering from bad decisions than this slippery slope.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not? If they can decide which speech is tolerated on their platforms and which isn't, then why not this?
    - biswaroop 6y ago
      They're private companies. They're free to decide which countries to serve in. That is very different from dictating the laws in the countries. In one case, they're sacrificing profits for company values. In the other case, they're forcing others to follow their laws. I honestly wouldn't care if a conservative Christian software company decided not to do business in California because they thought the state had immoral laws. That doesn't mean they're forcing their laws on us.
- joshuaissac 6y ago
  I agree that Google needs to follow the law where they operate. I do think they should have challenged the demand in court, however. That would show that they at least tried to stand up for their app developers.
- simion314 6y ago
  Sure, but if the users could side load applications then even if the government would demand the giants to remove X app or book the user could find a way. People were listening to forbidden radio stations in secret and this was possible because DRM did not exist on the radio and TV equipment.
  - lupire 6y ago
    Google allowed side loading these apps, right? At least for now?
    - simion314 6y ago
      Yes, Android allows side loading but in fact it depends on the company that makes the device. Apple makes the OS and the only iOS devices so they control everything.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
sbmthakur 6y ago
That's unfortunate considering Ahmadiyyas were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis
- valarauko 6y ago
  The community also produced Pakistan's first Nobel Laureate, and the first Muslim to receive a Nobel for science. Upon his death, the Pakistani government defaced his gravestone to remove the word "muslim". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
  - nashashmi 6y ago
    Indeed they are highly educated minority. Often it is thought that the British facilitated their establishment and growth and gave them opportunities both in the colony and abroad from which they prospered.
    - valarauko 6y ago
      That supposes some sort of concerted action by the British Raj, which I don't think was the case. Rather, the early Ahmadi Caliphs were keen to state their loyalty to the British as their temporal masters, and that the hands-off British rule was preferable to native princes, especially the Sikhs. Like other evangelical movements in such an environment, they flourished.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      It's true that they did take British money to establish early colleges in Punjab but no more (and quite a bit less) than the DAV schools did. But the story of British conspiracy falls apart when you consider they dragged MGA into court on charge of mailing a letter inside a parcel. If he was really working for Punjab CID or whatnot do you think they would have bothered with that or he would have bothered writing effusive letters of praise to judge when he was acquitted?
sanxiyn 6y ago
I am waiting for comments from Alphabet Workers Union. They said they "demand that the tech industry refuse to maintain infrastructures of oppression". This seems like a perfect fit.
- wtf_is_up 6y ago
  Slactivism is fun when you can use it to enhance your social capital, but doing the actual work is a chore.
  - patwolfe 6y ago
    I think once they got to the point of forming an actual union (which, at Google, has a historical risk to job security) the "slactivism" potshots became inarguably unwarranted.
    - dahfizz 6y ago
      They call themselves a union, but until they start doing union things, some skepticism is warranted.
      - patwolfe 6y ago
        Agreed - I think skepticism is usually warranted, and there are unions that are very active in doing "union things" in America that do more harm than good to the working class. I just took issue with the "slactivism" complaint specifically, because by starting the union the employees involved put themselves at risk of being fired. To me, continuing to call that slactivism is moving the goalposts to an unfair degree.
aNoob7000 6y ago
I'm worried about the future of computing devices. With Apple and Google going with the walled garden approach, What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal? Nothing; that's most of the idea of a government.
  - fleshdaddy 6y ago
    It would seem to me that in the case of apps they’re telling us what information is legal. That isn’t most of the idea of government for people.
    - therealdrag0 6y ago
      That’s why we need good government.
- newscracker 6y ago
  Nothing to stop any government. This has already happened in a few countries, especially with banning apps of a certain kind or apps from certain countries.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  By definition, in most places, govts have a monopoly on physical violence (i.e. : they have the most guns). So, to answer your question that starts with "What's to stop any government", the answer is : nothing.
  - username90 6y ago
    Governments have mostly failed to stop websites. Moving from websites to appstore apps gives governments more power. It also gives giant corporations more power. So it is a bad development if you fear giant corporations or governments.
dartharva 6y ago
It's so horrifying to realize that something like "Anti-blasphemy laws" and the internet coexist in some countries.
- sanxiyn 6y ago
  Such as Switzerland.
  - buran77 6y ago
    Many European countries (like Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Finland, parts of UK*, Poland, Russia) have blasphemy laws going as far as mandating prison terms, even if they rarely convict or even indict anyone under them. * corrected from "UK".
    - peteri 6y ago
      Formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008. Still on the statute books for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although a lot of anti-racist hate speech stuff could be used for the same effect in England and Wales.
      - zo1 6y ago
        Governments are wisening up. Tinfoil hat me says they're replacing "blasphemy laws" with more politically palatable yet more vague "Hate speech" laws that are ridiculously loose and can be applied how they see fit, including prosecuting blasphemy-like criticism of Religion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So...
        sofixa 6y ago
        I don't see anything ridiculously loose about that law: > No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful,be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. [65] > The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
FriedrichN 6y ago
Just another reason why you don't want companies like Apple and Google to be the gatekeepers. Technology can set you free, but only if you let it. If you don't, it can easily become a new tool of oppression.
- adventured 6y ago
  The gatekeeper is Pakistan, it's their sovereign territory. The Internet isn't outside of that reach, it only exists inside of a territory with the permission of the government that controls it. You might as well be talking about any of a zillion laws within 195 different countries that one might find objectionable, it's exactly the same 'problem.' What's the premise? Pakistan doesn't get to decide their own laws? That's identical to saying that Pakistan shouldn't get to decide how networks operate in their territory. And if we're going there, no nations in Europe should be allowed to determine their own speech laws or restrictions because I largely disagree with them, and they also shouldn't be allowed to control or restrict any networks that operate within their borders under any circumstances, and that includes barring them from limiting any content for any reason. Fun game.
  - YawningAngel 6y ago
    Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be able to deplatform Donald Trump and not have Pakistan chase my friends in the Ahmadiyya community off the internet than accept both of those outcomes
    - adventured 6y ago
      I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether anyone likes it or not. There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really, really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that? Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws / religion / et al. Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion? What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their government? I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool, now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's actually the central matter here. They are de facto the gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign territory, period. See: China and how they operate the Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not. An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals should never trade with bad nations, because they have to comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides that? More fun.
fmajid 6y ago
Pakistan's persecution of the Ahmadis is despicable (and that of Hindus, and Christians), and Apple and Google's meek compliance is craven.
- Arun2009 6y ago
  Unfortunately, this is not a Pakistan specific thing. Ahmadis have been persecuted in pretty much every major Muslim nation. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis Prima facie, it'd seem that the common factor enabling their persecution is Islam.
  - margalabargala 6y ago
    I don't think that's a fair assessment of Islam. The whole issue seems to be an internal argument among the Muslim community- so Islam is a necessary precondition for this problem, as it's the subject matter of the issue, but not the causative agent.
    - sbmthakur 6y ago
      It's no longer an internal argument among Muslims. Laws of various countries do not identify Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslims.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    The list of countries in that article also includes Belarus, Belgium and Bulgaria, where the common factor seems to have been Islamophobia instead.
    - devlopr 6y ago
      That's an issue affects all muslims in those countries and many non-muslims who may appear that way. Islam does have a huge internal debate over which branch is correct that has never been settled. To not accept this group of people is unique in Islamic countries because they have been using this as a weapon against minorities by creating separate laws. By extending to other muslims this is more about trying to make them lower members of society with less rights and an excuse for mistreatment without breaking religious morals. You are allowed to do things to non muslims that wouldn't be acceptable to a muslims.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
While I agree that banning religious apps is particularly objectionable, it's interesting to compare the response to Pakistan banning US apps and India banning Chinese apps.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"? Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    While I won't draw my exact lines, an annotated version of the Qur'an for your sect pretty clearly should be allowed.
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that? What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples? I'm curious if you can draw the lines on those or if that's harder to say "this is clearly allowed".
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that? Like the Qur'an? No problems bud. >What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples? If I actually thought their religion truly believed that, absolutely a-ok. If they were doing it to be assholes, I'd still have no problems with it but I understand why there would be some people very upset and wish they would voluntarily stop. That's also how I view depictions of Muhammad, if apps involving that were what Pakistan banned I'd see every party involved as objectionable. Here there's a clear victim.
rmrfrmrf 6y ago
Pakistan's laws are clearly wrong, but Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws.
- matthewaveryusa 6y ago
  Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical solutions -- It goes both ways though
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-) public company in the position of power.
- kop316 6y ago
  So may I ask your opinion of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
  - 542458 6y ago
    I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are all that similar. In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone’s encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust orders is allowed under US law. Versus this case where the Pakistani government does, unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this law as harshly as it wants.
  - tdaltonc 6y ago
    In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.
  - edrxty 6y ago
    Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot participate based on random whims. If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or Pakistan, then it would be a different story.
CryptoPunk 6y ago
The digital commons should be run on censorship resistant ledgers, like distributed public blockchains.
anewaccount2021 6y ago
where are all the commenters who told us private companies are free to filter on private platforms as they see fit?
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Here! I support this! If it makes you want to use a different service and are critical of the giant platform that Apple and Google have, good! The other positive here is that one less religion in the world is promoted as being equal to all others. I'd rather only have to deal with 4 mass delusions than 5.
zupreme 6y ago
For those defending this practice, consider carefully the implications of what you are advocating. On one hand you have a government deciding who can and cannot refer to themselves as adherents of a particular religion (by declaring that Ahamadis cannot call themselves Muslim). On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being the complicit chokepoints of “free speech”, with regard to app developers. These may seem fair to you, but that may be because these practices have not negatively affected you...yet. But consider: Would it be fair if England declared Catholics “unChristian” and banned their use if the term? Or what if the USA declared hasidic jews “Unjewish” and banned their use of the term. Or what if Apple caved to pressure theoretical from Israel to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses from using the term “Jehovah”? What next? Government declaring who is and is not “white”? Oh wait......
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  If we got to that situation, that would be the result of far greater problems than having or not having a particular app.
- jariel 6y ago
  "These may seem fair to you" I don't see 'seeming fair' to most people. This is just yet another example of Google and Apple's monopoly preferences being leveraged by entities that have more leverage than them. It has to stop. Free The Apps.
  - kmeisthax 6y ago
    The PTA isn't stopping at walled-garden App Stores; Google and Apple are just one of the few countries large enough to have a physical presence Pakistan can threaten. They also threatened a handful of US-based web hosts who are basically prohibited from seeing their families until they censor this sect. (And yes, I'm using the word 'censor' here. It is entirely appropriate under even the narrowest definitions of the word, as the decision to remove content was made with the force of law. The US has similar provisions known as the 'state actors doctrine'.)
  - bluejekyll 6y ago
illustriousbear 6y ago
They're a private company guys. I thought you were all ok with private companies doing what they want.
everyone 6y ago
This is a good example of why walled gardens are so awful. Sometime they seem fine, but if all one can access is a walled garden, then all kinds of dystopian shit becomes trivial to implement. Please never support walled gardens!
sradman 6y ago
How should multinational conglomerates like Apple and Google handle sovereign nation states that violate The Golden Rule? I think the best case scenario is to deescalate the situation while also minimizing the impact of the violation; I don’t have a clue how best to achieve this lofty goal.
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Not operate in those spaces?
  - tzs 6y ago
    Suppose I've got a search engine. It's the best there is for searches in politics, sports, health, education, shopping, entertainment, and nearly everything else. Country X passes a law that says search engines cannot return politics results. If I stay in country X and filter out politics then the people in country X end up with no politics search and the best search in the world in all the other categories. If I decide to not operate in X then the people there use some second rate search engine that obeys X's law. The people of X still end up with no politics search and they end up with second rate search in all the other categories. How does my not operating in X help the people of X?
    - ben509 6y ago
      The people can live without your search engine, because there are other ways to find content. It's hard enough to mount resistance against a repressive regime when it is blanketed with propaganda. When companies like Google and Apple operate in those nations, they help legitimize and normalize that regime, confirming all the propaganda. After all, the Google brand didn't come from the regime, they are a foreign firm that decided it was ethical to do business there.
    - Layke1123 6y ago
      If no one operates in X, X feels pressure to either compete themselves with subpar service as you have said, or they lose out on revenue by opening up for free trade and no longer restricting access on search engines to politics. If you are asking how best to help their population in general, there are a lot better things you could do to help their people out. At a minimum, you could start your own private search business that refuses to limit your searches and fill in a niche and make an even better search algorithm rather than dictate what you think a private business should be able to do with their platform. If this were a public right or utility, then you have an argument maybe, but last time I checked, private businesses aren't in the business of serving a public right, only try to make a profit.
tibbydudeza 6y ago
It is all about the money , why do people expect companies driven by shareholder "value" think they should have be moral ???. Do no evil is a pipedream.
throwaway123x2 6y ago
Pakistan's attitude towards Ahmadiyya is trash. It's ridiculous to me as a Pakistani that a country born to counter the persecution of minorities should so blatantly persecute them itself. I genuinely cannot process the hypocrisy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nashashmi 6y ago
  The Ahmadiyya movement is seen also as a cult. As someone who resisted the idea of discrimination for some random accusatory beliefs, I later realized the group does not reciprocate non discrimination but discriminates even harder. Some of this can be understood. Because intra support is a characteristic along minorities. But the level is not just support but also active hate and cult like behavior.
  - throwaway123x2 6y ago
    People say the same about Muslims in general in the west and we get pretty outraged. Why don't we get outraged when Muslims do the same to their minorities?
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    You're not wrong, but tightening the screws on them (Ahmedis) is only going to make them burrow further in. Does anything in Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and the like's behavior seem to you like on average they're interested in conversion?
kahlonel 6y ago
To get an idea how rampant Islamism is in Pakistan when it comes to Ahmadis, read this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-politics-idUSKCN1LN0UT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-politics-idUSKCN... Pakistan will literally sacrifice its economy for the sake of keeping Mullahs happy. It's sad and despicable.
- r00fus 6y ago
  You speak as if the same isn't in effect everywhere else. Sure the example here is more stark, but look at the sacrifice of environment and warmongering the US does for the oil industry, or look at any number of moves China makes to benefit members of CCP party members over it's populace. It is sad and despicable and entirely human nature.
desi_ninja 6y ago
an interesting experiment is that with a politically charged post on India, many Indians will comment to criticize their own country and Pakistanis and some middle East folks would chime in too. but in case like this where Pak is involved, thry are all absent from discourse. not a single pakistani wants to criticize their country. Why ?
rubycon22 6y ago
Why don't they just go make their own app store? Who do they think they are that they believe they have some right to someone else's hard drive. They're private companies brO!
cccc4all 6y ago
Apple and Google made business decision to be gatekeepers to their platforms. This resulted in great profit for the companies, but at great cost of user freedoms. Many people have celebrated Apple and Google censor and deplatform their competition and others with political bias. It’s a private company, they can do whatever they want. Pakistan is private country, they can do whatever they want. Now, they are using their powers to force Apple and Google censor and deplatform. Slippery slope is slippery and water is wet. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
paganel 6y ago
It's only normal, they did the same thing when politically pressured in the US.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
1024core 6y ago
This only applies to Pakistan. It isn't Google's or Apple's place to fix Pakistan's problems. A company has to obey the laws of the country they are operating in. Those who oppose this should consider the alternative. Suppose there's an app that is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, which is against the law in the US. Since it is violating the law, shouldn't it be taken down?
- Layke1123 6y ago
  Absolutely. Free speech means your default position is that you can say whatever you want, and then the court can determine if it violates the spirit of the law. The flip side to this is that you can absolutely be given a sentence in other countries without free speech and have to litigate or violently overthrow the regime that denies you due process. But in neither society should something like racism be tolerated. There is no good that can come from saying white people are better than black people simple because they are black. It is not a useful metric at all when evaluating people. MLK really said it best. Do not judge based on the color of his children's skin but the content of their character.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Let's go one step further: Suppose there's an app which is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, and that is in accordance with the law in the US (as it was not too long ago). Should Google allow that app, since it's in accordance with the law and it makes them money, or should they consider if the law is unethical according to their own moral compass? Perhaps this hypothetical question is erroneous, as it assumes a trillion dollar corporation would be more concerned with ethics and morals than providing infinite growth for their shareholders.
- koshnaranek 6y ago
  So if Google would have had to use their phones to help find the SS find hidden Jewa, perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, they can and should do so since it is after all not their responsibility to fix Nazi Germany?
rediguanayum 6y ago
The app appears to be available in the US on the App Play store.
bcheung 6y ago
We have been seeing deplatforming happen more and more these last few months. Seems like this is going to accelerate a decentralized Internet. It's going to be exciting times with a lot of societal questions and problems to be answered as these new technologies take off and the old model of advertising and free services for personal data get replaced with a new model.
hartator 6y ago
There is an argument to be made for Apple and Google to not create a legal nexus there - just provide the services but no payments and no offices there - and don’t follow Pakistani laws.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
I keep thinking about infamous Telegram 'war' with russian cenrosship agency, RosKomNadzor. Telegram was blocked via russian ISPs, but was never removed from Russian sections of Google Play and Apple Appstore. We now see that Apple and Google, time after time, easily submit to the will of local governments and remove questionable apps. Yet, Telegram was NOT removed. Russian media agencies claim that RosKomNadzor asked Google&Apple to suspend the app, but the source for all media publications was always the same press-release by RKN. So it keeps me thinking: what if the world was played and all this 'blocking' scandal was just a publicity stunt to raise Telegram's profile as a service that does not give up data to authorities? Does anyone know if we can confirm via Google & Apple that they were asked to remove Telegram from play stores (and refused), or... they weren't really asked at all?
- stanislavb 6y ago
  This is an interesting point of view...
exabrial 6y ago
Censorship by monopolies is worse than censorship by government
- rajma 6y ago
  You have to be living in a free country to say that. Indian government banned internet from Kashmir overnight without any notice. Most journos who say anything negative against gov are jailed without any court hearing. I am all for pushing Google and Apple to change their stance on authoritarian governments. In this case, the ban is a direct result of gov censuring too.
neil_s 6y ago
Since the underlying issue here is clearly with Pakistan's laws, I tried looking up how effective a democracy Pakistan is, so that its people would be able to push for freedom of speech laws (or overturning the blasphemy laws) if they so wanted. Hard to find unbiased sources on this, but it seems like while Pakistan has technically had democratic elections for a while, they have been mired with issues until fairly recently. From wikipedia: "The democratic elections held in 2008 were the first to conclude a complete 5-year term in the nations' political history."
- screye 6y ago
  Pakistan is as much a democracy as Bhutan or China. Every (I do not exaggerate, you can actually check, since 1970) ex-leader of Pakistan was either assassinated, imprisoned or in exile. Pakistan is military state, with the thinnest facade of democracy. The only people who are allowed to run are those who are already endorsed by the military.
pknerd 6y ago
Going to make an unpopular opinion: Well... Their content is being blocked on behalf of their own government while Pakistani social media content, especially Twitter content is being banned by Twitter India on behalf of Indian government. Recently my account was restricted when I RTed tweets of an Indian raising voice against farmer protest and once I got banned because I RTed a tweet about atrocities in IOK. We also witnessed how parker app was banned and how many content is taken down on behalf of Many governments. The point is, many counties are involved in such wicked activities one way or other regardless of who is pro democracy and who isn't.
swiley 6y ago
Anything popular on a smartphone app store is compromised. If it weren't it would get taken off. See also: the recent de-platforming of Element (Matrix.)
screye 6y ago
Information and Economic warfare should be seen as no different than physical warfare with weapons. (That is the crux of 4G and 5G warfare as is officially acknowledged in militaries today) Google & Apple provide asymmetrical resources to 1 group (Pakistani Govt.) over the other (Ahmidiyas). This is no different than the US selling weapons only to the Saudis but not to Yemen. The Saudi situation is clearly seen by everyone as morally deplorable. However, Google and Apple aren't subjected to any scrutiny. I don't expect profit oriented companies to have any morals. However, Tech companies have spent an entire years of marketing expenses towards virtue signalling and claiming to be the ones who uphold morals. They have dug their own graves, now they must lie in it. They will deserve every twitter and internal storm created by a fresh scandal. If McKinsey had blood on its hands for causing the Opioid epidemic, then so do Google and Apple for the persecution of the Ahmediyas. (Note: Ahmediyas are the only strictly peaceful sect of Islam. They are not militant insurrectionists or actively traitorous in a manner that would warrant violent reaction)
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  I mean, that's just not true, in 1948 they volunteered for the Kashmir conflict. Deendar Anjuman aside on top of it, whether they want to rewrite history is up to them. Currently they do have a better PR and track record it seems.
etc-hosts 6y ago
I fell down Internet hole and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/americas_days_are_numbered_ahmadiyya_sect/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/ame... They could have at least spelled Nancy Pelosi correctly.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Shahid's brother Rashid is the real issue, a vaccine truther and quack.
  - etc-hosts 6y ago
    Didn't realize Rashid Buttar is his brother. I once went down rabbithole of Rashid sites, they're crazy!
ryanmccullagh 6y ago
By "caving" to governments, it seems like Apple and Google are trying to prevent new regulations from being implemented that would harm their businesses. Think about that for a second. Google is huge. Billions of dollars are at a stake for not only them, but their shareholders. If Google is nice to the government, perhaps their good behavior will be remembered when it comes to voting on new legislation that would harm their business and shareholders.
Wildgoose 6y ago
It seems there is an obvious answer here. Have the US Government make it clear to the Pakistan Government that if they wish to start Trade Sanctions targetted against US companies then the USA will promptly place Trade Sanctions on Pakistan. Actions have consequences.
ryzvonusef 6y ago
I'm in pakistan and censorship here is... weird ---- like... on reddit, govt of pakistan banned some subreddits... but there is some bizarre pattern and it's not clear exactly what is banned, leading to some hilarious discoveries, it's not just all subs tagged "nsfw", coz some of them are accessible, strangely enough (thank goodness for the RES nsfw filter) /r/trees is banned... but /r/marijuana is not, nor is /r/cocaine for that matter ;p quite a few porn subs are banned, which is understandable... but also banned is, and I shit you not, /r/handholding it's literally a sub about anime characters holding hands, I mean.... just checked, /r/exmuslim is accessible, and so are various ahmadiyya related subs, (for now atleast) so huh... I remember when /r/mapporn got banned once upon a time, but that was lifted ---- same for websites, you are browsing and suddenly you are met with a "surf safely" warning, and there is no rhyme or reason, there is nothing in the URL or the website content that resembles anything bannable, but yeah, until some fuck updates the filter, we are stuck ---- still, I make sure to NEVER EVER EVR say anything that remotely even touches any controversial subject even obliquely, it's a death sentence for your entire extended family, and accusations fly all too freely https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReports)&src=saved_search_click https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport...

428 points by shalmanese 6y ago

Of course I disagree with religious or any other intolerance, but, if you want to do business in Pakistan, you have to follow their rules. It isn't a case of 'caving to pressure', but of 'complying with the law', since the apps are available in other countries, just not in Pakistan, where they are deemed blasphemous, according to their laws.

gostsamo 6y ago
There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  But Google leaving hasn’t improved the civil rights situation in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond the scope of Googles.
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    Yes, but Google are not cooperating in that. If you are witnessing a crime that you cannot stop, does it mean that if the criminal gives you a thousand or even a million dollars, you will help them because the crime will happen anyway?
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      When you make a moral call, do you not forecast a fork in the road where you might choose the morally superior destiny? Or does one merely move moral words without the corresponding conviction to move moral results?
      - gostsamo 6y ago
        Lots of "moral" in your comment and it crowds the meaning for me. If you are accusing me that I'm preaching and not following my own words, that is a big assumption on your side.
        threatofrain 6y ago
        > 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then. This is what I'm accusing you of. How has Chinese affairs changed for the better after Google?
        sateesh 6y ago
        Not OP. But are you telling since Google's course of action didn't had any impact of altering actions of Chinese government, they (Google) should have stayed put.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        gostsamo 6y ago
        If you see a man being killed, would you go to the killer and say: "This guy is already dead and nobody can prosecute you because there are no sheriff in the county, but if you pay me, I'll help you with your laundry."? Because the question is not if Google can transform CCP, but if it would take part in its crimes. Unfortunately, there is no God or well-supplied jewish conspiracy that sits above us, knows everything, and can deliver direct consequences for our actions. So, we have a choice to make: to act in our direct interest or act against it and bet on a vague conjecture that a collective sacrifice will deliver a better future for everyone. So, asking if the choice of one changes anything is the wrong question in this case. Of course, all things above are not simple. There is the prisoners dilema "if not me, then someone else will do it", and "if it is me, I can prevent even worse from happening", but there is also the "slippery slope" where making small concessions leads to more and more concessions. So, everyone make there choices and we all leave with the consequences.
  - adaml_623 6y ago
    I'm going to disagree with you there. Have civil rights in China improved or worsened? Could they be even worse if Google hadn't left. You're right that this is beyond the scope of Google in the same way that it's beyond the scope of any individual. But together humans can slowly influence other humans and doing the right thing might be a tiny influence but eventually these might add up.
  - koshnaranek 6y ago
    We don't know if Google's actions did make them a tiny bit less bad or not
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's always worth remembering: Google couched leaving China in 2010 in humanitarian / ethical terms, but the reason they left was extremely clear: they got hacked internally by Chinese agents using physical access to the intranet. While Google got their security house in order, the most prudent course of action to protect their own company (including their employees) was to cut that physical access. Google restarted business in China around the same time it was able to bring the BeyondCorp initiative online.
antihero 6y ago
Perhaps is more companies refused to do business in a country due to diabolical laws, people would start voting against politicians that create diabolical laws.
- levosmetalo 6y ago
  So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not going all the way down and let those companies write beautiful laws and also enforce them, everywhere in the world?
  - antihero 6y ago
    I think if a law goes against your company values, such as egrariously stomping on human rights, you should have a principle and a backbone and not sacrifice those value to make money.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    >So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not? They, like anyone else traveling or doing business internationally, should decide which countries should be avoided. They can use whatever opinions or judgements they want. It is possible for a huge international corporation to have some sway on a country by not doing business there. But that's not always a bad thing. I'm more afraid of bad governments never suffering from bad decisions than this slippery slope.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not? If they can decide which speech is tolerated on their platforms and which isn't, then why not this?
  - biswaroop 6y ago
    They're private companies. They're free to decide which countries to serve in. That is very different from dictating the laws in the countries. In one case, they're sacrificing profits for company values. In the other case, they're forcing others to follow their laws. I honestly wouldn't care if a conservative Christian software company decided not to do business in California because they thought the state had immoral laws. That doesn't mean they're forcing their laws on us.
joshuaissac 6y ago
I agree that Google needs to follow the law where they operate. I do think they should have challenged the demand in court, however. That would show that they at least tried to stand up for their app developers.
simion314 6y ago
Sure, but if the users could side load applications then even if the government would demand the giants to remove X app or book the user could find a way. People were listening to forbidden radio stations in secret and this was possible because DRM did not exist on the radio and TV equipment.
- lupire 6y ago
  Google allowed side loading these apps, right? At least for now?
  - simion314 6y ago
    Yes, Android allows side loading but in fact it depends on the company that makes the device. Apple makes the OS and the only iOS devices so they control everything.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

sbmthakur 6y ago

That's unfortunate considering Ahmadiyyas were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis

valarauko 6y ago
The community also produced Pakistan's first Nobel Laureate, and the first Muslim to receive a Nobel for science. Upon his death, the Pakistani government defaced his gravestone to remove the word "muslim". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam
- nashashmi 6y ago
  Indeed they are highly educated minority. Often it is thought that the British facilitated their establishment and growth and gave them opportunities both in the colony and abroad from which they prospered.
  - valarauko 6y ago
    That supposes some sort of concerted action by the British Raj, which I don't think was the case. Rather, the early Ahmadi Caliphs were keen to state their loyalty to the British as their temporal masters, and that the hands-off British rule was preferable to native princes, especially the Sikhs. Like other evangelical movements in such an environment, they flourished.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    It's true that they did take British money to establish early colleges in Punjab but no more (and quite a bit less) than the DAV schools did. But the story of British conspiracy falls apart when you consider they dragged MGA into court on charge of mailing a letter inside a parcel. If he was really working for Punjab CID or whatnot do you think they would have bothered with that or he would have bothered writing effusive letters of praise to judge when he was acquitted?

sanxiyn 6y ago

I am waiting for comments from Alphabet Workers Union. They said they "demand that the tech industry refuse to maintain infrastructures of oppression". This seems like a perfect fit.

wtf_is_up 6y ago
Slactivism is fun when you can use it to enhance your social capital, but doing the actual work is a chore.
- patwolfe 6y ago
  I think once they got to the point of forming an actual union (which, at Google, has a historical risk to job security) the "slactivism" potshots became inarguably unwarranted.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    They call themselves a union, but until they start doing union things, some skepticism is warranted.
    - patwolfe 6y ago
      Agreed - I think skepticism is usually warranted, and there are unions that are very active in doing "union things" in America that do more harm than good to the working class. I just took issue with the "slactivism" complaint specifically, because by starting the union the employees involved put themselves at risk of being fired. To me, continuing to call that slactivism is moving the goalposts to an unfair degree.

aNoob7000 6y ago

I'm worried about the future of computing devices. With Apple and Google going with the walled garden approach, What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal?

thaumasiotes 6y ago
> What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal? Nothing; that's most of the idea of a government.
- fleshdaddy 6y ago
  It would seem to me that in the case of apps they’re telling us what information is legal. That isn’t most of the idea of government for people.
  - therealdrag0 6y ago
    That’s why we need good government.
newscracker 6y ago
Nothing to stop any government. This has already happened in a few countries, especially with banning apps of a certain kind or apps from certain countries.
ur-whale 6y ago
By definition, in most places, govts have a monopoly on physical violence (i.e. : they have the most guns). So, to answer your question that starts with "What's to stop any government", the answer is : nothing.
- username90 6y ago
  Governments have mostly failed to stop websites. Moving from websites to appstore apps gives governments more power. It also gives giant corporations more power. So it is a bad development if you fear giant corporations or governments.

dartharva 6y ago

It's so horrifying to realize that something like "Anti-blasphemy laws" and the internet coexist in some countries.

sanxiyn 6y ago
Such as Switzerland.
- buran77 6y ago
  Many European countries (like Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Finland, parts of UK*, Poland, Russia) have blasphemy laws going as far as mandating prison terms, even if they rarely convict or even indict anyone under them. * corrected from "UK".
  - peteri 6y ago
    Formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008. Still on the statute books for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although a lot of anti-racist hate speech stuff could be used for the same effect in England and Wales.
    - zo1 6y ago
      Governments are wisening up. Tinfoil hat me says they're replacing "blasphemy laws" with more politically palatable yet more vague "Hate speech" laws that are ridiculously loose and can be applied how they see fit, including prosecuting blasphemy-like criticism of Religion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#South_Africa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So...
      - sofixa 6y ago
        I don't see anything ridiculously loose about that law: > No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful,be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. [65] > The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

FriedrichN 6y ago

Just another reason why you don't want companies like Apple and Google to be the gatekeepers. Technology can set you free, but only if you let it. If you don't, it can easily become a new tool of oppression.

adventured 6y ago
The gatekeeper is Pakistan, it's their sovereign territory. The Internet isn't outside of that reach, it only exists inside of a territory with the permission of the government that controls it. You might as well be talking about any of a zillion laws within 195 different countries that one might find objectionable, it's exactly the same 'problem.' What's the premise? Pakistan doesn't get to decide their own laws? That's identical to saying that Pakistan shouldn't get to decide how networks operate in their territory. And if we're going there, no nations in Europe should be allowed to determine their own speech laws or restrictions because I largely disagree with them, and they also shouldn't be allowed to control or restrict any networks that operate within their borders under any circumstances, and that includes barring them from limiting any content for any reason. Fun game.
- YawningAngel 6y ago
  Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be able to deplatform Donald Trump and not have Pakistan chase my friends in the Ahmadiyya community off the internet than accept both of those outcomes
  - adventured 6y ago
    I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether anyone likes it or not. There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really, really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that? Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws / religion / et al. Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion? What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their government? I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool, now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's actually the central matter here. They are de facto the gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign territory, period. See: China and how they operate the Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not. An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals should never trade with bad nations, because they have to comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides that? More fun.

fmajid 6y ago

Pakistan's persecution of the Ahmadis is despicable (and that of Hindus, and Christians), and Apple and Google's meek compliance is craven.

Arun2009 6y ago
Unfortunately, this is not a Pakistan specific thing. Ahmadis have been persecuted in pretty much every major Muslim nation. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis Prima facie, it'd seem that the common factor enabling their persecution is Islam.
- margalabargala 6y ago
  I don't think that's a fair assessment of Islam. The whole issue seems to be an internal argument among the Muslim community- so Islam is a necessary precondition for this problem, as it's the subject matter of the issue, but not the causative agent.
  - sbmthakur 6y ago
    It's no longer an internal argument among Muslims. Laws of various countries do not identify Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslims.
- yorwba 6y ago
  The list of countries in that article also includes Belarus, Belgium and Bulgaria, where the common factor seems to have been Islamophobia instead.
  - devlopr 6y ago
    That's an issue affects all muslims in those countries and many non-muslims who may appear that way. Islam does have a huge internal debate over which branch is correct that has never been settled. To not accept this group of people is unique in Islamic countries because they have been using this as a weapon against minorities by creating separate laws. By extending to other muslims this is more about trying to make them lower members of society with less rights and an excuse for mistreatment without breaking religious morals. You are allowed to do things to non muslims that wouldn't be acceptable to a muslims.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

While I agree that banning religious apps is particularly objectionable, it's interesting to compare the response to Pakistan banning US apps and India banning Chinese apps.

Layke1123 6y ago
What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"? Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  While I won't draw my exact lines, an annotated version of the Qur'an for your sect pretty clearly should be allowed.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that? What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples? I'm curious if you can draw the lines on those or if that's harder to say "this is clearly allowed".
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that? Like the Qur'an? No problems bud. >What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples? If I actually thought their religion truly believed that, absolutely a-ok. If they were doing it to be assholes, I'd still have no problems with it but I understand why there would be some people very upset and wish they would voluntarily stop. That's also how I view depictions of Muhammad, if apps involving that were what Pakistan banned I'd see every party involved as objectionable. Here there's a clear victim.

rmrfrmrf 6y ago

Pakistan's laws are clearly wrong, but Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws.

matthewaveryusa 6y ago
Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical solutions -- It goes both ways though
- ethbr0 6y ago
  I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-) public company in the position of power.
kop316 6y ago
So may I ask your opinion of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
- 542458 6y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are all that similar. In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone’s encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust orders is allowed under US law. Versus this case where the Pakistani government does, unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this law as harshly as it wants.
- tdaltonc 6y ago
  In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.
- edrxty 6y ago
  Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot participate based on random whims. If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or Pakistan, then it would be a different story.

CryptoPunk 6y ago

The digital commons should be run on censorship resistant ledgers, like distributed public blockchains.

anewaccount2021 6y ago

where are all the commenters who told us private companies are free to filter on private platforms as they see fit?

Layke1123 6y ago
Here! I support this! If it makes you want to use a different service and are critical of the giant platform that Apple and Google have, good! The other positive here is that one less religion in the world is promoted as being equal to all others. I'd rather only have to deal with 4 mass delusions than 5.

zupreme 6y ago

For those defending this practice, consider carefully the implications of what you are advocating. On one hand you have a government deciding who can and cannot refer to themselves as adherents of a particular religion (by declaring that Ahamadis cannot call themselves Muslim). On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being the complicit chokepoints of “free speech”, with regard to app developers. These may seem fair to you, but that may be because these practices have not negatively affected you...yet. But consider: Would it be fair if England declared Catholics “unChristian” and banned their use if the term? Or what if the USA declared hasidic jews “Unjewish” and banned their use of the term. Or what if Apple caved to pressure theoretical from Israel to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses from using the term “Jehovah”? What next? Government declaring who is and is not “white”? Oh wait......

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
If we got to that situation, that would be the result of far greater problems than having or not having a particular app.
jariel 6y ago
"These may seem fair to you" I don't see 'seeming fair' to most people. This is just yet another example of Google and Apple's monopoly preferences being leveraged by entities that have more leverage than them. It has to stop. Free The Apps.
- kmeisthax 6y ago
  The PTA isn't stopping at walled-garden App Stores; Google and Apple are just one of the few countries large enough to have a physical presence Pakistan can threaten. They also threatened a handful of US-based web hosts who are basically prohibited from seeing their families until they censor this sect. (And yes, I'm using the word 'censor' here. It is entirely appropriate under even the narrowest definitions of the word, as the decision to remove content was made with the force of law. The US has similar provisions known as the 'state actors doctrine'.)
- bluejekyll 6y ago

illustriousbear 6y ago

They're a private company guys. I thought you were all ok with private companies doing what they want.

everyone 6y ago

This is a good example of why walled gardens are so awful. Sometime they seem fine, but if all one can access is a walled garden, then all kinds of dystopian shit becomes trivial to implement. Please never support walled gardens!

sradman 6y ago

How should multinational conglomerates like Apple and Google handle sovereign nation states that violate The Golden Rule? I think the best case scenario is to deescalate the situation while also minimizing the impact of the violation; I don’t have a clue how best to achieve this lofty goal.

Layke1123 6y ago
Not operate in those spaces?
- tzs 6y ago
  Suppose I've got a search engine. It's the best there is for searches in politics, sports, health, education, shopping, entertainment, and nearly everything else. Country X passes a law that says search engines cannot return politics results. If I stay in country X and filter out politics then the people in country X end up with no politics search and the best search in the world in all the other categories. If I decide to not operate in X then the people there use some second rate search engine that obeys X's law. The people of X still end up with no politics search and they end up with second rate search in all the other categories. How does my not operating in X help the people of X?
  - ben509 6y ago
    The people can live without your search engine, because there are other ways to find content. It's hard enough to mount resistance against a repressive regime when it is blanketed with propaganda. When companies like Google and Apple operate in those nations, they help legitimize and normalize that regime, confirming all the propaganda. After all, the Google brand didn't come from the regime, they are a foreign firm that decided it was ethical to do business there.
  - Layke1123 6y ago
    If no one operates in X, X feels pressure to either compete themselves with subpar service as you have said, or they lose out on revenue by opening up for free trade and no longer restricting access on search engines to politics. If you are asking how best to help their population in general, there are a lot better things you could do to help their people out. At a minimum, you could start your own private search business that refuses to limit your searches and fill in a niche and make an even better search algorithm rather than dictate what you think a private business should be able to do with their platform. If this were a public right or utility, then you have an argument maybe, but last time I checked, private businesses aren't in the business of serving a public right, only try to make a profit.

tibbydudeza 6y ago

It is all about the money , why do people expect companies driven by shareholder "value" think they should have be moral ???. Do no evil is a pipedream.

throwaway123x2 6y ago

Pakistan's attitude towards Ahmadiyya is trash. It's ridiculous to me as a Pakistani that a country born to counter the persecution of minorities should so blatantly persecute them itself. I genuinely cannot process the hypocrisy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 6y ago
The Ahmadiyya movement is seen also as a cult. As someone who resisted the idea of discrimination for some random accusatory beliefs, I later realized the group does not reciprocate non discrimination but discriminates even harder. Some of this can be understood. Because intra support is a characteristic along minorities. But the level is not just support but also active hate and cult like behavior.
- throwaway123x2 6y ago
  People say the same about Muslims in general in the west and we get pretty outraged. Why don't we get outraged when Muslims do the same to their minorities?
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  You're not wrong, but tightening the screws on them (Ahmedis) is only going to make them burrow further in. Does anything in Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and the like's behavior seem to you like on average they're interested in conversion?

kahlonel 6y ago

To get an idea how rampant Islamism is in Pakistan when it comes to Ahmadis, read this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-politics-idUSKCN1LN0UT https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-politics-idUSKCN... Pakistan will literally sacrifice its economy for the sake of keeping Mullahs happy. It's sad and despicable.

r00fus 6y ago
You speak as if the same isn't in effect everywhere else. Sure the example here is more stark, but look at the sacrifice of environment and warmongering the US does for the oil industry, or look at any number of moves China makes to benefit members of CCP party members over it's populace. It is sad and despicable and entirely human nature.

desi_ninja 6y ago

an interesting experiment is that with a politically charged post on India, many Indians will comment to criticize their own country and Pakistanis and some middle East folks would chime in too. but in case like this where Pak is involved, thry are all absent from discourse. not a single pakistani wants to criticize their country. Why ?

rubycon22 6y ago

Why don't they just go make their own app store? Who do they think they are that they believe they have some right to someone else's hard drive. They're private companies brO!

cccc4all 6y ago

Apple and Google made business decision to be gatekeepers to their platforms. This resulted in great profit for the companies, but at great cost of user freedoms. Many people have celebrated Apple and Google censor and deplatform their competition and others with political bias. It’s a private company, they can do whatever they want. Pakistan is private country, they can do whatever they want. Now, they are using their powers to force Apple and Google censor and deplatform. Slippery slope is slippery and water is wet. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

paganel 6y ago

It's only normal, they did the same thing when politically pressured in the US.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

1024core 6y ago

This only applies to Pakistan. It isn't Google's or Apple's place to fix Pakistan's problems. A company has to obey the laws of the country they are operating in. Those who oppose this should consider the alternative. Suppose there's an app that is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, which is against the law in the US. Since it is violating the law, shouldn't it be taken down?

Layke1123 6y ago
Absolutely. Free speech means your default position is that you can say whatever you want, and then the court can determine if it violates the spirit of the law. The flip side to this is that you can absolutely be given a sentence in other countries without free speech and have to litigate or violently overthrow the regime that denies you due process. But in neither society should something like racism be tolerated. There is no good that can come from saying white people are better than black people simple because they are black. It is not a useful metric at all when evaluating people. MLK really said it best. Do not judge based on the color of his children's skin but the content of their character.
loveistheanswer 6y ago
Let's go one step further: Suppose there's an app which is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, and that is in accordance with the law in the US (as it was not too long ago). Should Google allow that app, since it's in accordance with the law and it makes them money, or should they consider if the law is unethical according to their own moral compass? Perhaps this hypothetical question is erroneous, as it assumes a trillion dollar corporation would be more concerned with ethics and morals than providing infinite growth for their shareholders.
koshnaranek 6y ago
So if Google would have had to use their phones to help find the SS find hidden Jewa, perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, they can and should do so since it is after all not their responsibility to fix Nazi Germany?

rediguanayum 6y ago

The app appears to be available in the US on the App Play store.

bcheung 6y ago

We have been seeing deplatforming happen more and more these last few months. Seems like this is going to accelerate a decentralized Internet. It's going to be exciting times with a lot of societal questions and problems to be answered as these new technologies take off and the old model of advertising and free services for personal data get replaced with a new model.

hartator 6y ago

There is an argument to be made for Apple and Google to not create a legal nexus there - just provide the services but no payments and no offices there - and don’t follow Pakistani laws.

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago

I keep thinking about infamous Telegram 'war' with russian cenrosship agency, RosKomNadzor. Telegram was blocked via russian ISPs, but was never removed from Russian sections of Google Play and Apple Appstore. We now see that Apple and Google, time after time, easily submit to the will of local governments and remove questionable apps. Yet, Telegram was NOT removed. Russian media agencies claim that RosKomNadzor asked Google&Apple to suspend the app, but the source for all media publications was always the same press-release by RKN. So it keeps me thinking: what if the world was played and all this 'blocking' scandal was just a publicity stunt to raise Telegram's profile as a service that does not give up data to authorities? Does anyone know if we can confirm via Google & Apple that they were asked to remove Telegram from play stores (and refused), or... they weren't really asked at all?

stanislavb 6y ago
This is an interesting point of view...

exabrial 6y ago

Censorship by monopolies is worse than censorship by government

rajma 6y ago
You have to be living in a free country to say that. Indian government banned internet from Kashmir overnight without any notice. Most journos who say anything negative against gov are jailed without any court hearing. I am all for pushing Google and Apple to change their stance on authoritarian governments. In this case, the ban is a direct result of gov censuring too.

neil_s 6y ago

Since the underlying issue here is clearly with Pakistan's laws, I tried looking up how effective a democracy Pakistan is, so that its people would be able to push for freedom of speech laws (or overturning the blasphemy laws) if they so wanted. Hard to find unbiased sources on this, but it seems like while Pakistan has technically had democratic elections for a while, they have been mired with issues until fairly recently. From wikipedia: "The democratic elections held in 2008 were the first to conclude a complete 5-year term in the nations' political history."

screye 6y ago
Pakistan is as much a democracy as Bhutan or China. Every (I do not exaggerate, you can actually check, since 1970) ex-leader of Pakistan was either assassinated, imprisoned or in exile. Pakistan is military state, with the thinnest facade of democracy. The only people who are allowed to run are those who are already endorsed by the military.

pknerd 6y ago

Going to make an unpopular opinion: Well... Their content is being blocked on behalf of their own government while Pakistani social media content, especially Twitter content is being banned by Twitter India on behalf of Indian government. Recently my account was restricted when I RTed tweets of an Indian raising voice against farmer protest and once I got banned because I RTed a tweet about atrocities in IOK. We also witnessed how parker app was banned and how many content is taken down on behalf of Many governments. The point is, many counties are involved in such wicked activities one way or other regardless of who is pro democracy and who isn't.

swiley 6y ago

Anything popular on a smartphone app store is compromised. If it weren't it would get taken off. See also: the recent de-platforming of Element (Matrix.)

screye 6y ago

Information and Economic warfare should be seen as no different than physical warfare with weapons. (That is the crux of 4G and 5G warfare as is officially acknowledged in militaries today) Google & Apple provide asymmetrical resources to 1 group (Pakistani Govt.) over the other (Ahmidiyas). This is no different than the US selling weapons only to the Saudis but not to Yemen. The Saudi situation is clearly seen by everyone as morally deplorable. However, Google and Apple aren't subjected to any scrutiny. I don't expect profit oriented companies to have any morals. However, Tech companies have spent an entire years of marketing expenses towards virtue signalling and claiming to be the ones who uphold morals. They have dug their own graves, now they must lie in it. They will deserve every twitter and internal storm created by a fresh scandal. If McKinsey had blood on its hands for causing the Opioid epidemic, then so do Google and Apple for the persecution of the Ahmediyas. (Note: Ahmediyas are the only strictly peaceful sect of Islam. They are not militant insurrectionists or actively traitorous in a manner that would warrant violent reaction)

selimthegrim 6y ago
I mean, that's just not true, in 1948 they volunteered for the Kashmir conflict. Deendar Anjuman aside on top of it, whether they want to rewrite history is up to them. Currently they do have a better PR and track record it seems.

etc-hosts 6y ago

I fell down Internet hole and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/americas_days_are_numbered_ahmadiyya_sect/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/ame... They could have at least spelled Nancy Pelosi correctly.

selimthegrim 6y ago
Shahid's brother Rashid is the real issue, a vaccine truther and quack.
- etc-hosts 6y ago
  Didn't realize Rashid Buttar is his brother. I once went down rabbithole of Rashid sites, they're crazy!

ryanmccullagh 6y ago

By "caving" to governments, it seems like Apple and Google are trying to prevent new regulations from being implemented that would harm their businesses. Think about that for a second. Google is huge. Billions of dollars are at a stake for not only them, but their shareholders. If Google is nice to the government, perhaps their good behavior will be remembered when it comes to voting on new legislation that would harm their business and shareholders.

Wildgoose 6y ago

It seems there is an obvious answer here. Have the US Government make it clear to the Pakistan Government that if they wish to start Trade Sanctions targetted against US companies then the USA will promptly place Trade Sanctions on Pakistan. Actions have consequences.

ryzvonusef 6y ago

I'm in pakistan and censorship here is... weird ---- like... on reddit, govt of pakistan banned some subreddits... but there is some bizarre pattern and it's not clear exactly what is banned, leading to some hilarious discoveries, it's not just all subs tagged "nsfw", coz some of them are accessible, strangely enough (thank goodness for the RES nsfw filter) /r/trees is banned... but /r/marijuana is not, nor is /r/cocaine for that matter ;p quite a few porn subs are banned, which is understandable... but also banned is, and I shit you not, /r/handholding it's literally a sub about anime characters holding hands, I mean.... just checked, /r/exmuslim is accessible, and so are various ahmadiyya related subs, (for now atleast) so huh... I remember when /r/mapporn got banned once upon a time, but that was lifted ---- same for websites, you are browsing and suddenly you are met with a "surf safely" warning, and there is no rhyme or reason, there is nothing in the URL or the website content that resembles anything bannable, but yeah, until some fuck updates the filter, we are stuck ---- still, I make sure to NEVER EVER EVR say anything that remotely even touches any controversial subject even obliquely, it's a death sentence for your entire extended family, and accusations fly all too freely https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReports)&src=saved_search_click https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport...