6 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 th

>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
You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics. Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.
- mcguire 6y ago
  "...US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics." Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
    Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments to govt side), though they had the new problem of terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).
- LiberatedLlama 6y ago
  > Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)
- passivate 6y ago
  Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?
  - foolmeonce 6y ago
klagermkii 6y ago
Laws don't matter without the ability to enforce them. Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised control, but that is what allows those countries to very easily enforce these kinds of laws.
- passivate 6y ago
  Yes, I agree with what you said.
stale2002 6y ago
> what problem would open platforms solve? If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there were many competing app stores, then people could get around theses bans more easily. For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone, and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so, via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if Apple banned the app from the app store. > whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? They could do that, but if it was easy to install apps on a phone, then it would be very difficult for a country to block every website that hosts the app. > . Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that Governments are not infinitely powerful. An efforts to get around government internet censorship, sometimes work. And the more methods there are of circumventing government censorship, the easier it is to do so. Censorship has an effect. But it is not perfect. There is a spectrum of behavior, where it can be easier or harder to get around censorship.
- passivate 6y ago
  You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country, while the business is working against the interests of said government. Apple and Google are businesses who operate in various countries with the objective of making money. I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be in charge of engineering social behavior around the world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold in the country. It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country. > should be in charge of engineering social behavior Intel is already selling PCs though. Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics? > In my opinion, this is a dangerous path. So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
    - 6y ago
birksherty 6y ago
They can't ban a windows pc software like this as it's not walled garden. When phones come with app store, they must be responsible.
- passivate 6y ago
  They can block the hosting servers, domains, etc. They can also block you from searching the name of the app, etc. There are multiple tools of censorship that are available to governments. Banning the app is the easiest.
  - birksherty 6y ago
    Here we are talking about blocking by google and apple, not whether url can be blocked.

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

You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics. Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.

mcguire 6y ago
"...US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics." Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.
- foolmeonce 6y ago
  Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments to govt side), though they had the new problem of terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).
LiberatedLlama 6y ago
> Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)
passivate 6y ago
Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?
- foolmeonce 6y ago

klagermkii 6y ago

Laws don't matter without the ability to enforce them. Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised control, but that is what allows those countries to very easily enforce these kinds of laws.

passivate 6y ago
Yes, I agree with what you said.

stale2002 6y ago

> what problem would open platforms solve? If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there were many competing app stores, then people could get around theses bans more easily. For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone, and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so, via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if Apple banned the app from the app store. > whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? They could do that, but if it was easy to install apps on a phone, then it would be very difficult for a country to block every website that hosts the app. > . Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that Governments are not infinitely powerful. An efforts to get around government internet censorship, sometimes work. And the more methods there are of circumventing government censorship, the easier it is to do so. Censorship has an effect. But it is not perfect. There is a spectrum of behavior, where it can be easier or harder to get around censorship.

passivate 6y ago
You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country, while the business is working against the interests of said government. Apple and Google are businesses who operate in various countries with the objective of making money. I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be in charge of engineering social behavior around the world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold in the country. It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country. > should be in charge of engineering social behavior Intel is already selling PCs though. Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics? > In my opinion, this is a dangerous path. So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
  - 6y ago

birksherty 6y ago

They can't ban a windows pc software like this as it's not walled garden. When phones come with app store, they must be responsible.

passivate 6y ago
They can block the hosting servers, domains, etc. They can also block you from searching the name of the app, etc. There are multiple tools of censorship that are available to governments. Banning the app is the easiest.
- birksherty 6y ago
  Here we are talking about blocking by google and apple, not whether url can be blocked.