11 ms·

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,

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.
    - YawningAngel 6y ago
      If internet services in general were less centralised, Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its ability to wield that power against its citizens might be reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction associated with doing so
    - centimeter 6y ago
      Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in a way where it’s not possible for Pakistan to wholesale prevent people from using a piece of software.
      - FlownScepter 6y ago
        At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan. This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws and culture of the places where it operates, especially with regard to the global south. Just because you either don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. I of course disagree with what's happening here, but nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.
        ethbr0 6y ago
        Not available for purchase != not available. I understand the point you're trying to make: technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's from a non-Western / less-democratic country. But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there are technical qualities about the internet that make it censorship-resistant.
        FlownScepter 6y ago
        I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media hasn't or can't, and there is some truth to that? But that wasn't because of some innate superiority; it was because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom to express oneself is the default, with authorities only really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed through the Internet's spread to other parts of the world, where this is not always the case, and the reaction in general from companies especially borders on pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana republic?" Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic, regardless of how banana it might be, it is the Government and it has power. I feel like this is the penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to find out that the madman running around in tanks and aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know, over there, actually does have direct and indisputable power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is probably killing tons of them. Like, we know that, but we don't understand what that means, not really. How could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further from my reality. And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes too much of a problem.
- FriedrichN 6y ago
  That would be nice if phones were open and free, but they aren't. For many, especially in developing nations, the phone is the way to access the internet. If Google/Apple wouldn't have such a stranglehold on the world of mobile phones, people would be free to choose which app repo they use or which apps they sideload. But sadly, they are not.
  - dmortin 6y ago
    Andriod is open in the sense that you can sideload apps independently of the play store, you just have to enable it. So in such countries the movements with banned apps should post step by step guides for their followers of how they can enable sideloading and install the banned app. On iPhone you have to root your phone for sideloading, so that is a closed system for the average user, but on Android there is an option for that, so no rooting is required: https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-android/ https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-and...
  - sofixa 6y ago
    How would they be free? A country like Pakistan could just as easily block any service that provides content they deem illegal ( as is the case here) via the ISPs( SNI sniffing, DNS blocking, IP blocking) that can't disagree. If anything, Google and Apple have more leverage than F-Droid or similar because Pakistan can't block them without significant backlash, and needs their cooperation, which is at least debated ( point in case, the article says a few of the apps weren't blocked by Google). And furthermore, anyone can install any apk or app store serving apks on Android devices.
    - lordloki 6y ago
      Right now Pakistan is able to block any service they deem as illegal by getting Google and Apple to block it. They have two gates they need to close. If users could load any apps they want outside of the google and apple stores there would be many gates that countries like Pakistan would need to close. Not only more gates but new gates opening every day. Basically, it would be the old internet model, which is very difficult to control.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Yeah I agree with you that the sovereignty of people should be respected. But shouldnt we draw some line? Say Israel makes a law that Arab citizens should be tracked through a digital symbol to identify that they are of the non-Jewish subset of the population — should US companies comply? And I specifically choose Israel because it has a history of discrimination against its Arab population.
  - silentsea90 6y ago
    If the pattern tells you anything, US companies will comply. The major notable case of non compliance has been Google not entering China, which I argue has been more to do with internal activism than the company's preferences. Would also say that it is harder to leave a country once you're in it than not entering in the first place, so I think Google might not have left China if that were the case. Apple happily conducts business in China and I am absolutely certain allows backdoor access to the Chinese Government. Arguably, the US getting backdoor access is almost as bad so we should already be up in arms about this, but I don't see a protest anywhere. Hope the new privacy and decentralization wave makes it very hard to spy on people.
  - gataca 6y ago
    If you wanted to be more historically accurate it would be the reverse, with Islamic nations forcing Jews and other religious minorities to carry symbols identifying non-muslims (the yellow badge for Jews has a long history in islamic countries and predated its use by the Nazis). I guess that wouldn't apply now since most Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the Islamic world, allowing you to focus on potential future crimes of Israel. lol
    - sofixa 6y ago
      > allowing you to focus on potential future crimes of Israel You mean active current and historical crimes of Israel, surely? Two wrongs don't make a right, and many people and countries discriminating or massacring Jews historically doesn't excuse Israel's apartheid state, crimes against humanity and international law violations.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  I'll say it here again: There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime.
  - sofixa 6y ago
    Even the definition of basic human rights is disputed. Just check the topics of abortion, access to internet, property, religious freedoms, sexual orientation. In some countries some of those are defined as basic human rights, in others some are outright banned.
    - gostsamo 6y ago
      Yes, and those countries are places that people usually look for how to leave.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Basic human rights are not 'access to internet", they are things like 'not being tortured' which are generally accepted from US to mongolia. Sure its fuzzy around the edges but like the pamous supreme court case with porn: "i know it when i see it"
- andrejserafim 6y ago
  Totally right. Remember that capital doesn't have a nation. Companies registered in the US have to comply with US laws. But a legal entity in Pakistan have to obide by those rules. And if it's profitable - they will. Replace Pakistan with any other country name, the argument doesn't change. It's the law in that jurisdiction. You can't really mix and match the legislation you like and don't like. No idea if the particular law is just, but that's not the question. The question is - is it profitable to abide by it?
  - babesh 6y ago
    Funny how Apple and Google are still fine with doing business in Pakistan.
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      What exactly is your point?
      - babesh 6y ago
        They are hypocrites. They loudly proclaim how moral they are but when it is inconvenient/unprofitable their morality disappears.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        it's more that their morality includes compliance with the laws of the states they operate in. It always has, and they will buck those laws on extremely rare occasions, usually when they believe they are seeing a mis-implementation of the laws, and (when outside the US) usually by ceasing to do business in the territory (see: Google's pullback from China). None of what we're seeing in Pakistan right now is new for tech company SOP. Google Maps shows different borders depending on the location of the originating query. Twitter masks certain tweets for users in Germany because some speech that's legal in the US is illegal in Germany and the penalties are harsh for propagating it. It's a big world, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on law or ethics in the international community.
- jariel 6y ago
  This is not a very god argument and it that can be used to justify the worst possible actions including genocide. The 'problem' here - is that outside actors are forced to become 'complicit' with all sorts of laws that are potentially an objectively 'bad'. By removing app restrictions by Apple and Google - we remove the complicity, making the issue squarely one of Pakistani authoritarianism. With Google, at least there are ways to install apps without their app store, with Apple, obviously not.
EGreg 6y ago
Yes, we keep saying this. But the alternative is right in front of us... it is the open Web and related technologies. If someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple. Wordpress powers 40% of all such websites. But for Web 2.0 where are the open source alternatives? Discourse? We need something that can handle chatrooms, videoconferencing and more, and can be hosted anywhere. All around the world, we need such web based tools.
- sofixa 6y ago
  > someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple ISPs are still in Pakistan, so if the country wants, there are a myriad of ways to block a website. Most are preventable, but for the majority of people the site will be effectively blocked.
  - EGreg 6y ago
    Okay so replace DNS with DHT, and have people use Tor or Beaker browsers with Dat or MaidSAFE
jmull 6y ago
Sigh The problem here lies with Pakistan, not Apple and Google. An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them. The most Apple and Google can do is leave the market. There's an argument for that, but that doesn't make those apps available in Pakistan, and, more importantly, doesn't end the oppression of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan. There are arguments against gatekeeping tech companies, but this isn't one of them.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  The problem lies with Pakistan and Apple and Google. If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store blocking them would be much harder. The entity creating the apps does not seem to have a commercial presence in Pakistan and the Pakistani government would have no jurisdiction over their actions. Having large commercial intermediaries with money on the line is really convenient when you want to get something censored. From the article: > The PTA also ordered shut a US-based Ahmadi site, TrueIslam.com, threatening its administrators with criminal charges that carry a $3 million fine. The decision may not be enforceable, since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan.
  - jmull 6y ago
    You're suggesting that if Apple and Google create an app-loading mechanism that makes it difficult for them to block an app, that Pakistan will simply let them off the hook. I don't think so. Why wouldn't Pakistan simply require them to block it anyway? > ...since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan Not relevant. In this case, Apple and Google do business in Pakistan. You can argue they need to leave the market. If so, let's hear it. (Personally, I don't think that would have an impact or be the right way to go even if it did.)
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      I'm suggesting that Apple and Google should not be in position to decide what users run on their apps. On Android, it is rather close to it (sans push notifications, which are not available without Google Play services, and without which background apps running is somewhat problematic), but Apple is a completely opposite.

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.
  - YawningAngel 6y ago
    If internet services in general were less centralised, Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its ability to wield that power against its citizens might be reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction associated with doing so
  - centimeter 6y ago
    Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in a way where it’s not possible for Pakistan to wholesale prevent people from using a piece of software.
    - FlownScepter 6y ago
      At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan. This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws and culture of the places where it operates, especially with regard to the global south. Just because you either don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to you. I of course disagree with what's happening here, but nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        Not available for purchase != not available. I understand the point you're trying to make: technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's from a non-Western / less-democratic country. But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there are technical qualities about the internet that make it censorship-resistant.
        FlownScepter 6y ago
        I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media hasn't or can't, and there is some truth to that? But that wasn't because of some innate superiority; it was because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom to express oneself is the default, with authorities only really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed through the Internet's spread to other parts of the world, where this is not always the case, and the reaction in general from companies especially borders on pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana republic?" Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic, regardless of how banana it might be, it is the Government and it has power. I feel like this is the penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to find out that the madman running around in tanks and aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know, over there, actually does have direct and indisputable power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is probably killing tons of them. Like, we know that, but we don't understand what that means, not really. How could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further from my reality. And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes too much of a problem.
FriedrichN 6y ago
That would be nice if phones were open and free, but they aren't. For many, especially in developing nations, the phone is the way to access the internet. If Google/Apple wouldn't have such a stranglehold on the world of mobile phones, people would be free to choose which app repo they use or which apps they sideload. But sadly, they are not.
- dmortin 6y ago
  Andriod is open in the sense that you can sideload apps independently of the play store, you just have to enable it. So in such countries the movements with banned apps should post step by step guides for their followers of how they can enable sideloading and install the banned app. On iPhone you have to root your phone for sideloading, so that is a closed system for the average user, but on Android there is an option for that, so no rooting is required: https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-android/ https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-and...
- sofixa 6y ago
  How would they be free? A country like Pakistan could just as easily block any service that provides content they deem illegal ( as is the case here) via the ISPs( SNI sniffing, DNS blocking, IP blocking) that can't disagree. If anything, Google and Apple have more leverage than F-Droid or similar because Pakistan can't block them without significant backlash, and needs their cooperation, which is at least debated ( point in case, the article says a few of the apps weren't blocked by Google). And furthermore, anyone can install any apk or app store serving apks on Android devices.
  - lordloki 6y ago
    Right now Pakistan is able to block any service they deem as illegal by getting Google and Apple to block it. They have two gates they need to close. If users could load any apps they want outside of the google and apple stores there would be many gates that countries like Pakistan would need to close. Not only more gates but new gates opening every day. Basically, it would be the old internet model, which is very difficult to control.
DSingularity 6y ago
Yeah I agree with you that the sovereignty of people should be respected. But shouldnt we draw some line? Say Israel makes a law that Arab citizens should be tracked through a digital symbol to identify that they are of the non-Jewish subset of the population — should US companies comply? And I specifically choose Israel because it has a history of discrimination against its Arab population.
- silentsea90 6y ago
  If the pattern tells you anything, US companies will comply. The major notable case of non compliance has been Google not entering China, which I argue has been more to do with internal activism than the company's preferences. Would also say that it is harder to leave a country once you're in it than not entering in the first place, so I think Google might not have left China if that were the case. Apple happily conducts business in China and I am absolutely certain allows backdoor access to the Chinese Government. Arguably, the US getting backdoor access is almost as bad so we should already be up in arms about this, but I don't see a protest anywhere. Hope the new privacy and decentralization wave makes it very hard to spy on people.
- gataca 6y ago
  If you wanted to be more historically accurate it would be the reverse, with Islamic nations forcing Jews and other religious minorities to carry symbols identifying non-muslims (the yellow badge for Jews has a long history in islamic countries and predated its use by the Nazis). I guess that wouldn't apply now since most Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the Islamic world, allowing you to focus on potential future crimes of Israel. lol
  - sofixa 6y ago
    > allowing you to focus on potential future crimes of Israel You mean active current and historical crimes of Israel, surely? Two wrongs don't make a right, and many people and countries discriminating or massacring Jews historically doesn't excuse Israel's apartheid state, crimes against humanity and international law violations.
gostsamo 6y ago
I'll say it here again: There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime.
- sofixa 6y ago
  Even the definition of basic human rights is disputed. Just check the topics of abortion, access to internet, property, religious freedoms, sexual orientation. In some countries some of those are defined as basic human rights, in others some are outright banned.
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    Yes, and those countries are places that people usually look for how to leave.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Basic human rights are not 'access to internet", they are things like 'not being tortured' which are generally accepted from US to mongolia. Sure its fuzzy around the edges but like the pamous supreme court case with porn: "i know it when i see it"
andrejserafim 6y ago
Totally right. Remember that capital doesn't have a nation. Companies registered in the US have to comply with US laws. But a legal entity in Pakistan have to obide by those rules. And if it's profitable - they will. Replace Pakistan with any other country name, the argument doesn't change. It's the law in that jurisdiction. You can't really mix and match the legislation you like and don't like. No idea if the particular law is just, but that's not the question. The question is - is it profitable to abide by it?
- babesh 6y ago
  Funny how Apple and Google are still fine with doing business in Pakistan.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    What exactly is your point?
    - babesh 6y ago
      They are hypocrites. They loudly proclaim how moral they are but when it is inconvenient/unprofitable their morality disappears.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        it's more that their morality includes compliance with the laws of the states they operate in. It always has, and they will buck those laws on extremely rare occasions, usually when they believe they are seeing a mis-implementation of the laws, and (when outside the US) usually by ceasing to do business in the territory (see: Google's pullback from China). None of what we're seeing in Pakistan right now is new for tech company SOP. Google Maps shows different borders depending on the location of the originating query. Twitter masks certain tweets for users in Germany because some speech that's legal in the US is illegal in Germany and the penalties are harsh for propagating it. It's a big world, and the US doesn't have a monopoly on law or ethics in the international community.
jariel 6y ago
This is not a very god argument and it that can be used to justify the worst possible actions including genocide. The 'problem' here - is that outside actors are forced to become 'complicit' with all sorts of laws that are potentially an objectively 'bad'. By removing app restrictions by Apple and Google - we remove the complicity, making the issue squarely one of Pakistani authoritarianism. With Google, at least there are ways to install apps without their app store, with Apple, obviously not.

EGreg 6y ago

Yes, we keep saying this. But the alternative is right in front of us... it is the open Web and related technologies. If someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple. Wordpress powers 40% of all such websites. But for Web 2.0 where are the open source alternatives? Discourse? We need something that can handle chatrooms, videoconferencing and more, and can be hosted anywhere. All around the world, we need such web based tools.

sofixa 6y ago
> someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple ISPs are still in Pakistan, so if the country wants, there are a myriad of ways to block a website. Most are preventable, but for the majority of people the site will be effectively blocked.
- EGreg 6y ago
  Okay so replace DNS with DHT, and have people use Tor or Beaker browsers with Dat or MaidSAFE

jmull 6y ago

Sigh The problem here lies with Pakistan, not Apple and Google. An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them. The most Apple and Google can do is leave the market. There's an argument for that, but that doesn't make those apps available in Pakistan, and, more importantly, doesn't end the oppression of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan. There are arguments against gatekeeping tech companies, but this isn't one of them.

AlexandrB 6y ago
The problem lies with Pakistan and Apple and Google. If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store blocking them would be much harder. The entity creating the apps does not seem to have a commercial presence in Pakistan and the Pakistani government would have no jurisdiction over their actions. Having large commercial intermediaries with money on the line is really convenient when you want to get something censored. From the article: > The PTA also ordered shut a US-based Ahmadi site, TrueIslam.com, threatening its administrators with criminal charges that carry a $3 million fine. The decision may not be enforceable, since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan.
- jmull 6y ago
  You're suggesting that if Apple and Google create an app-loading mechanism that makes it difficult for them to block an app, that Pakistan will simply let them off the hook. I don't think so. Why wouldn't Pakistan simply require them to block it anyway? > ...since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan Not relevant. In this case, Apple and Google do business in Pakistan. You can argue they need to leave the market. If so, let's hear it. (Personally, I don't think that would have an impact or be the right way to go even if it did.)
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    I'm suggesting that Apple and Google should not be in position to decide what users run on their apps. On Android, it is rather close to it (sans push notifications, which are not available without Google Play services, and without which background apps running is somewhat problematic), but Apple is a completely opposite.