8 ms·

Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps thi

Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Those open platforms exist. Can the apps in question be downloaded in Pakistan via F-Droid?
- fakedang 6y ago
  What about the iOS users? AFAIK, it's more likely the Ahmadiyyas have iPhones since they are a relatively well-off community compared to the rest of Pakistan (or the Muslim world in general).
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Very good point. I had my viewpoint focused on Android and forgot that the side-loading question on Apple is very different.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      I can tell you none of my cousins over there who belong to that community had an iPhone last time I saw them, they were busy making fun of an old iPhone I had brought to sell compared to their Androids
sk5t 6y ago
Just as we have laws that prevent US organizations from giving or taking bribes even in countries where bribes are legal (FCPA), and US laws prevent US individuals from overseas sex tourism which would be illegal on US soil, what prevents us from requiring US organizations not to participate in religious oppression, child exploitation, and other such acts?
- zepto 6y ago
  Nothing. That would be a good way to solve this problem.
- mcguire 6y ago
  You would further have to require US organizations not to do business with other organizations that participate in oppression, etc., transitively. And have to have a way to enforce that.
- yibg 6y ago
  Would this not just lead to a fragmentation of whatever industry? e.g. if google / apple can't legally do business in Pakistan or some other countries because of these laws, presumably someone like China will step in and provided the missing products or services. Not that this is necessarily a bad situation ethnically anyways, but there are consequences.
passivate 6y ago
>Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened. In this particular case, what problem would open platforms solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple and Google should be on the hook for solving religious problems in other countries? If so, I think wanting companies to engineer social behavior in other countries is a dangerous path bordering on the unethical (IMO). But having said all that, whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? Ultimately, the app has to be downloaded from somewhere. Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that,etc ,etc. It's just whack-a-mole.
- zapdrive 6y ago
  Each of the two alternate steps you mentioned are an order of magnitude more difficult than just banning the app.
  - passivate 6y ago
    I don't think its an order of magnitude. Blocking CDNs that host APKs and P2P traffic is fairly easy to implement. Most firewalls will let you do this. The more wide-scale you want to deploy your app, the easier it will be to detect (more asymmetry) and block the hosting source. Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I believe the best approach to the problem is solving it bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing "western morals" on a developing country.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Telegram is 'blocked' in Russia, yet you can still get the APK, you can install it, it works, torrents work, etc. It's crazy popular. The action you describe were tried anf they broke half the internet, and were backpedalled.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
d1zzy 6y ago
How come would that not happen? Apps come from somewhere and they are installed on someone's platform. The government can simply ask the provider of those apps to stop providing them and/or the provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed. Your only choice then is to comply or stop doing business in that country. So the only reasonable complaint I could see against these companies now is "maybe they should have stopped doing business in that country" which would allow them to take the high moral road. Ofc that wouldn't necessarily result in better freedom for the people in the country, just fewer services than the rest of the world but it is a possible choice.
- readams 6y ago
  If the provider of the app has no footprint in the oppressive country, and Apple and Google have control because they have open platforms, then the apps will continue to be available.
- jjav 6y ago
  > provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed The fact that this is possible (worse on iOS) is the architectural and political tragedy of these app stores. A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that.
  - sneak 6y ago
    > A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that. What if end users who buy the device WANT the manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device malware- and spyware-free?
    - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
      Do you think Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan want Apple and the Pakistani government to forbid them from installing the software they like? Do you think they feel safe because of this? It is common for totalitarian systems to cite user/citizen safety to justify themselves. I encourage you to see past this bullshit.
sneak 6y ago
You're right that if they ran open platforms where they don't have the power to ban apps this never would have happened: someone else who made a basically malware-free experience for phones would be in that position instead. An "open platform" where every inexperienced user can install whatever they want on their device is a world where most every phone has several remote access malware/spyware packages installed on it. Centralizing these functions is good, in some respects.

Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Those open platforms exist. Can the apps in question be downloaded in Pakistan via F-Droid?

fakedang 6y ago
What about the iOS users? AFAIK, it's more likely the Ahmadiyyas have iPhones since they are a relatively well-off community compared to the rest of Pakistan (or the Muslim world in general).
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Very good point. I had my viewpoint focused on Android and forgot that the side-loading question on Apple is very different.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    I can tell you none of my cousins over there who belong to that community had an iPhone last time I saw them, they were busy making fun of an old iPhone I had brought to sell compared to their Androids

sk5t 6y ago

Just as we have laws that prevent US organizations from giving or taking bribes even in countries where bribes are legal (FCPA), and US laws prevent US individuals from overseas sex tourism which would be illegal on US soil, what prevents us from requiring US organizations not to participate in religious oppression, child exploitation, and other such acts?

zepto 6y ago
Nothing. That would be a good way to solve this problem.
mcguire 6y ago
You would further have to require US organizations not to do business with other organizations that participate in oppression, etc., transitively. And have to have a way to enforce that.
yibg 6y ago
Would this not just lead to a fragmentation of whatever industry? e.g. if google / apple can't legally do business in Pakistan or some other countries because of these laws, presumably someone like China will step in and provided the missing products or services. Not that this is necessarily a bad situation ethnically anyways, but there are consequences.

passivate 6y ago

>Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened. In this particular case, what problem would open platforms solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple and Google should be on the hook for solving religious problems in other countries? If so, I think wanting companies to engineer social behavior in other countries is a dangerous path bordering on the unethical (IMO). But having said all that, whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? Ultimately, the app has to be downloaded from somewhere. Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that,etc ,etc. It's just whack-a-mole.

zapdrive 6y ago
Each of the two alternate steps you mentioned are an order of magnitude more difficult than just banning the app.
- passivate 6y ago
  I don't think its an order of magnitude. Blocking CDNs that host APKs and P2P traffic is fairly easy to implement. Most firewalls will let you do this. The more wide-scale you want to deploy your app, the easier it will be to detect (more asymmetry) and block the hosting source. Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I believe the best approach to the problem is solving it bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing "western morals" on a developing country.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Telegram is 'blocked' in Russia, yet you can still get the APK, you can install it, it works, torrents work, etc. It's crazy popular. The action you describe were tried anf they broke half the internet, and were backpedalled.
foolmeonce 6y ago

d1zzy 6y ago

How come would that not happen? Apps come from somewhere and they are installed on someone's platform. The government can simply ask the provider of those apps to stop providing them and/or the provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed. Your only choice then is to comply or stop doing business in that country. So the only reasonable complaint I could see against these companies now is "maybe they should have stopped doing business in that country" which would allow them to take the high moral road. Ofc that wouldn't necessarily result in better freedom for the people in the country, just fewer services than the rest of the world but it is a possible choice.

readams 6y ago
If the provider of the app has no footprint in the oppressive country, and Apple and Google have control because they have open platforms, then the apps will continue to be available.
jjav 6y ago
> provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed The fact that this is possible (worse on iOS) is the architectural and political tragedy of these app stores. A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that.
- sneak 6y ago
  > A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that. What if end users who buy the device WANT the manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device malware- and spyware-free?
  - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
    Do you think Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan want Apple and the Pakistani government to forbid them from installing the software they like? Do you think they feel safe because of this? It is common for totalitarian systems to cite user/citizen safety to justify themselves. I encourage you to see past this bullshit.

sneak 6y ago

You're right that if they ran open platforms where they don't have the power to ban apps this never would have happened: someone else who made a basically malware-free experience for phones would be in that position instead. An "open platform" where every inexperienced user can install whatever they want on their device is a world where most every phone has several remote access malware/spyware packages installed on it. Centralizing these functions is good, in some respects.