12 ms·

You make a great argument for Governments that support religious freedom. Not sure I follow your logic to a conclusion that makes Apple and Google the villains

You make a great argument for Governments that support religious freedom. Not sure I follow your logic to a conclusion that makes Apple and Google the villains here though. A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not. There is no choice that involves serving those users but not following the oppressive laws of said country.

Siira 6y ago
VPNs are a thing.
andrewnicolalde 6y ago
By following this oppressive law to "serve those users," Apple and Google appear to be partaking in the oppression of those users.
- pas 6y ago
  Is oppression additive/cumulative/composable/transitive? When someone has the power to do "fix" things but chooses not to, then that someone is partially responsible. Can A or G (or together) fix this?
  - snoshy 6y ago
    It sure seems additive in this case. Google & Apple can choose not to do business in regulatory regimes that are oppressive in nature. That obviously comes at a direct cost of lost revenue from abstinence. It is a deliberate choice to do business anywhere at all. The simple fix here as you say, would be to stop doing business when forced to enact business practices that further oppression. Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the choice to assent to this.
    - pas 6y ago
      If they choose not to do business will that fix the problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away? Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question. The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression. How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression? (I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc. In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression. So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case. In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)
      - amelius 6y ago
        > In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?) Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.
        pas 6y ago
        I recommend everybody to do so too. But not for this direct moral reason. (Which I'm honestly and sadly too ignorant and uncertain about.) I think there's room for smaller/niche providers, a subculture of self-hosters.
      - snoshy 6y ago
        Oppressive regimes even of the most extreme order still need to deal with reality and the choices of other parties that aren't fully within their control. If Google/Apple were to take a stand here and walk away, it would put tremendous pressure on Pakistani government, and make this a hot button issue. Imagine the entire nation waking up one day to find that their apps no longer function because their leaders made choices that they likely weren't even aware were being made. It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. Pakistan is a democracy, however broken it may be, and you can sure bet that other political parties would step in to fill this role. > In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. I mean no, that's definitely not the analogy. When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. It's not some innocent bystander thing, they literally have to write code or take other actions to make this happen. Remember, the status quo is that the apps stay in the store today. An explicit action is required to change that.
        pas 6y ago
        China did it. Many countries routinely block Google stuff. > It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. How can we be certain of that? I think many people drastically underestimate the number of people who a) don't care b) are invested in the regime c) gullible d) care, but won't do anything because they don't want to rock the boat, e) care, want to rock the boat, but won't because protesting is still not without some danger. Yes, sure, other political parties would do whatever they do. Does that work? Not really. (Maybe over long-long periods of time.) > When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. Agreed. Yet it's close to meaningless to look at it in a vacuum. Their choices are a) comply, don't even put up a fight, b) comply, try to exhaust legal options, b) stop doing business there. I'm asking how to weigh those. What's best for the people of Pakistan. What's best for this particular vulnerable/oppressed group? What's best for all people?
    - dzmien 6y ago
      I am not sure if it is that simple, and I think companies have little choice but to be greedy, because if they choose not to be greedy, another greedier company is all but guaranteed to prevail. I suppose it could be argued that companies the size of Apple and Google are not bound by the same constraints as smaller companies. But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What about all the people who would be deprived of Apple and Google products/services?
      - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
        > But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What happens to Pakistani users of Debian, if Debian doesn't do business in Pakistan? Nothing. Those users are fine. iOS users would be in a bind only because Apple chose to create a system where users are left high-and-dry if/when Apple decides to no longer do business in any country.
        sjwright 6y ago
        A somewhat disingenuous argument. Debian isn’t physical hardware.
        LiberatedLlama 6y ago
        It's not selling physical hardware that binds Apple here; it's having an app store that requires the cooperation of national government to process payments. Pakistan could forbid Apple from opening Apple Stores in Pakistan, but Pakistanis would likely still be able to purchase apple products through resellers and/or black/graymarkets. And if iOS were not locked to Apple's authoritarian app store, oppressed ethnic minorities in Pakistan could distribute software through through their preexisting covert channels.
    - rpdillon 6y ago
      Both choices seem terrible to me: either stop serving swaths of users or take part in removing their freedom. If Apple and Google fostered a strong community of alternative app stores, they wouldn't have to make this choice at all.
      - andrewnicolalde 6y ago
        Does one of those choices seriously not sound worse than the other?
        rpdillon 6y ago
        It depends on how you measure "worse". I gather you're alluding to the moral argument, and I completely agree: Google leaving Pakistan is my gut reaction to this. But public companies have shareholders that demand the company optimize for revenue, so I assume they are balancing that as well. This means they are weighing value systems against one another. I was trying to highlight an opportunity to encourage other app stores to reconcile this tension to some degree. Allowing/encouraging other app stores will no doubt impact revenue to some degree, but perhaps not a great degree, since it mostly acts as an escape hatch in cases like this (convenience seems to dominate user behavior). But it would also allow Google/Apple to continue to serve users in Pakistan, some of whom might not agree with their government's position. The subtext here is that I fundamentally disagree with the argument that users should be disallowed from installing apps of their choice from sources of their choice on devices they purchased. I know this is a fringe opinion, so I was eager to point out how it might help in this situation.
        andrewnicolalde 6y ago
        I understand. Apologies if I came off as confrontational. You make good points.
  - franga2000 6y ago
    For one, not being able to use Google or Apple products would be such a hit to the modern way of life that people might become less complacent. To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in, but it makes sense that people would be more likely to stand up to tyranny when something very important to them is swiftly taken away. Even the simple act of taking a stance against these practices might inspire people to fight for their freedom. Now, of course, all of these are small chances and all the ususl caveats of revolutions apply, but surely G&A continuing to do business there benefits nobody but themselves?
    - wreckagedemon 6y ago
      "To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in" Perhaps you should blame the people, if by the people you mean the Pakistani populace. I say this as a Pakistani. The issue of discrimination towards Ahmedis is something that has widespread support among the populace. From uneducated masses to university professors, poor to rich. Very few people actually oppose the discrimination towards Ahmedis. And those who speak up to support Ahmedis have to be very careful. The issue with Ahmedis is always pretty closely linked to the issue with blasphemy and of protecting the "Prophet's honor" in Pakistan. Many people have been killed over the blasphemy issue and even those who would say that blasphemy laws need to be revised were killed. You can look up the murder of Salman Taseer, the chief minister of Punjab (one of Pakistan's 4 provinces, and the largest province by population). Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard for saying that blasphemy laws should be reviewed.
      - pas 6y ago
        Why are Pakistani people dismissive of arguments for support for Ahmedis? Sure, it might be ultimately their own making, but how much of that is the product of brainwashing by certain rival groups trying to gain power? It seems the people are just as much trapped in this, even if they don't realize. (Like the QAnon cultists in the US. And there's a very big political party in the US basically cheering them on for very-very-very short sighted goals.) People ought to know better, people have the responsibility to better themselves, their thought patterns, their reasoning, refine their worldview ... but if their ability to do so is already thin, it's hard to blame people, since - it seems - they had very little power to act responsible.
mindslight 6y ago
Actually there is. Don't set up physical presences in oppressive countries. Architect your software to not rely on singular chokepoints like centralized servers. We've seem to have forgotten this, because it's not economically expedient. But we shouldn't give these companies a pass for having set themselves up to be instruments of totalitarianism.
- mcguire 6y ago
  According to the article, Pakistan (along with China, Vietnam, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia among others) requires physical presence and data localization in order to do business.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Or what? A physical presence is one of the only leverage points they'd have over you. If you don't accede to that, what are they going to do? Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple could have set themselves up this way, likely with the full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to and now predictably find themselves being used to implement totalitarianism. Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is finding themselves under such pressure, because they simply don't have the technical capability to control what users run on their computers.
    - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
      > Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, I agree with your general point but not this part. Apple products still find their way into countries with no Apple Stores. I don't think selling physical products really makes the situation much sticker. If Apple chose to be a pure hardware company and refused to do any business in Pakistan, Pakistanis could still purchase Apple devices through the usual resellers and/or [black/gray]markets. Pakistan would have no leverage over Apple, as you point out, and Apple would not be a participant in the implementation totalitarianism (as they presently are.)
MikeUt 6y ago
Notice that Debian wasn't forced to take down any apps, which shows choice 3: Do not place themselves in the position of arbiters of what apps their users may run (either by technical locks, such as Apple, or by making alternatives extremely inconvenient, such as Google).
mabbo 6y ago
> A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an ethical person. You're just an opportunist. Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them, well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing. Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.
- sneak 6y ago
  Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law, operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to iPhone users in China. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-complicates-apples-chest-thumping-about-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...
  - alacombe 6y ago
    Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies) complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the almighty $$.
    - mensetmanusman 6y ago
      Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance and left China I thought? It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...
      - bitL 6y ago
        It always starts with a "new leadership"...
      - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
        No matter what the PR departments of these corporations would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's always about the money. These corporations are fair-weather activists at best.
nomoreusernames 6y ago
french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had this thing where they chopped of skin from their babies genitals. would you be ok with that? why is it ok when religious people do it? clearly following dogma in this case over reason is the symptom of mental illness or damage. religions are much more oppressive if you ask me. they function without a state or government. they are a low evolved form of government used to gain power.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. This is exactly what we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > french secularism is beautiful. As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some what extremist (but understand their historic roots). Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and European democracy (especially France), but is not similar: The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion. ('Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religious-faith-seeds-of-hatred-madras-high-court-evangelist-fir-169464 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religi... ). In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it has to compete with religious ideas for its existence. So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity in a government office or in public schools. So unlike France (and some other European states) that would frown on a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in government office, all these practices are quite common in India. One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust. And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like ours, restricting cultural practices can create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of each other when they are exposed to each others culture, including religious ones, and understand it. Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for the majority to understand the minority, and the minority to be comfortable in the society because everyone is encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if not acceptance). Another reasoning is that the state understands that every human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and thus eschews being anti-religious. Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it encourages reformists to work with the respective section of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable and lasting in society. We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are now facing the same issue as the political party in power tries to push a religious identity on to our country and make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed in India.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Apple is in a self imposed category of only legit legal way to install software on users devices and is thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion. The logical thing is to make Apple decide between servicing the entire American and European market and caving to repressive regimes.
- tim333 6y ago
  >thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion Many religions actually predate iphone apps and thus may be able to get on without them. I think Moses himself got by with basic html though I may be wrong on that.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    You probably wouldn't allow Comcast to filter out all catholic content for subscribers even though the internet hadn't been thought of when the religion was founded.
COGlory 6y ago
So is ethically IBM criticism free for their role in the holocaust?
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Are any people with a role in the holocaust still working at IBM? Companies are not a suoernatural force, they are conposed of people.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
So american companies will compromise on their own freedom, an important american value and principle, for the sake of pursuing profit in foreign countries. They'd rather obey a foreign dictator than lose their business.
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  Why is it a compromise on their own freedom? Are American companies not free to choose where and who with to do business?
birksherty 6y ago
Apple Google are villains because they control what and how app installs by having the app store. If it was like Windows pc it wouldn't be like this. They chose this method, in applied case a walled garden that only they can control, so must be responsible.

Siira 6y ago

VPNs are a thing.

andrewnicolalde 6y ago

By following this oppressive law to "serve those users," Apple and Google appear to be partaking in the oppression of those users.

pas 6y ago
Is oppression additive/cumulative/composable/transitive? When someone has the power to do "fix" things but chooses not to, then that someone is partially responsible. Can A or G (or together) fix this?
- snoshy 6y ago
  It sure seems additive in this case. Google & Apple can choose not to do business in regulatory regimes that are oppressive in nature. That obviously comes at a direct cost of lost revenue from abstinence. It is a deliberate choice to do business anywhere at all. The simple fix here as you say, would be to stop doing business when forced to enact business practices that further oppression. Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the choice to assent to this.
  - pas 6y ago
    If they choose not to do business will that fix the problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away? Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question. The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression. How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression? (I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc. In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression. So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case. In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)
    - amelius 6y ago
      > In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?) Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.
      - pas 6y ago
        I recommend everybody to do so too. But not for this direct moral reason. (Which I'm honestly and sadly too ignorant and uncertain about.) I think there's room for smaller/niche providers, a subculture of self-hosters.
    - snoshy 6y ago
      Oppressive regimes even of the most extreme order still need to deal with reality and the choices of other parties that aren't fully within their control. If Google/Apple were to take a stand here and walk away, it would put tremendous pressure on Pakistani government, and make this a hot button issue. Imagine the entire nation waking up one day to find that their apps no longer function because their leaders made choices that they likely weren't even aware were being made. It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. Pakistan is a democracy, however broken it may be, and you can sure bet that other political parties would step in to fill this role. > In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. I mean no, that's definitely not the analogy. When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. It's not some innocent bystander thing, they literally have to write code or take other actions to make this happen. Remember, the status quo is that the apps stay in the store today. An explicit action is required to change that.
      - pas 6y ago
        China did it. Many countries routinely block Google stuff. > It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. How can we be certain of that? I think many people drastically underestimate the number of people who a) don't care b) are invested in the regime c) gullible d) care, but won't do anything because they don't want to rock the boat, e) care, want to rock the boat, but won't because protesting is still not without some danger. Yes, sure, other political parties would do whatever they do. Does that work? Not really. (Maybe over long-long periods of time.) > When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. Agreed. Yet it's close to meaningless to look at it in a vacuum. Their choices are a) comply, don't even put up a fight, b) comply, try to exhaust legal options, b) stop doing business there. I'm asking how to weigh those. What's best for the people of Pakistan. What's best for this particular vulnerable/oppressed group? What's best for all people?
  - dzmien 6y ago
    I am not sure if it is that simple, and I think companies have little choice but to be greedy, because if they choose not to be greedy, another greedier company is all but guaranteed to prevail. I suppose it could be argued that companies the size of Apple and Google are not bound by the same constraints as smaller companies. But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What about all the people who would be deprived of Apple and Google products/services?
    - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
      > But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What happens to Pakistani users of Debian, if Debian doesn't do business in Pakistan? Nothing. Those users are fine. iOS users would be in a bind only because Apple chose to create a system where users are left high-and-dry if/when Apple decides to no longer do business in any country.
      - sjwright 6y ago
        A somewhat disingenuous argument. Debian isn’t physical hardware.
        LiberatedLlama 6y ago
        It's not selling physical hardware that binds Apple here; it's having an app store that requires the cooperation of national government to process payments. Pakistan could forbid Apple from opening Apple Stores in Pakistan, but Pakistanis would likely still be able to purchase apple products through resellers and/or black/graymarkets. And if iOS were not locked to Apple's authoritarian app store, oppressed ethnic minorities in Pakistan could distribute software through through their preexisting covert channels.
  - rpdillon 6y ago
    Both choices seem terrible to me: either stop serving swaths of users or take part in removing their freedom. If Apple and Google fostered a strong community of alternative app stores, they wouldn't have to make this choice at all.
    - andrewnicolalde 6y ago
      Does one of those choices seriously not sound worse than the other?
      - rpdillon 6y ago
        It depends on how you measure "worse". I gather you're alluding to the moral argument, and I completely agree: Google leaving Pakistan is my gut reaction to this. But public companies have shareholders that demand the company optimize for revenue, so I assume they are balancing that as well. This means they are weighing value systems against one another. I was trying to highlight an opportunity to encourage other app stores to reconcile this tension to some degree. Allowing/encouraging other app stores will no doubt impact revenue to some degree, but perhaps not a great degree, since it mostly acts as an escape hatch in cases like this (convenience seems to dominate user behavior). But it would also allow Google/Apple to continue to serve users in Pakistan, some of whom might not agree with their government's position. The subtext here is that I fundamentally disagree with the argument that users should be disallowed from installing apps of their choice from sources of their choice on devices they purchased. I know this is a fringe opinion, so I was eager to point out how it might help in this situation.
        andrewnicolalde 6y ago
        I understand. Apologies if I came off as confrontational. You make good points.
- franga2000 6y ago
  For one, not being able to use Google or Apple products would be such a hit to the modern way of life that people might become less complacent. To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in, but it makes sense that people would be more likely to stand up to tyranny when something very important to them is swiftly taken away. Even the simple act of taking a stance against these practices might inspire people to fight for their freedom. Now, of course, all of these are small chances and all the ususl caveats of revolutions apply, but surely G&A continuing to do business there benefits nobody but themselves?
  - wreckagedemon 6y ago
    "To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in" Perhaps you should blame the people, if by the people you mean the Pakistani populace. I say this as a Pakistani. The issue of discrimination towards Ahmedis is something that has widespread support among the populace. From uneducated masses to university professors, poor to rich. Very few people actually oppose the discrimination towards Ahmedis. And those who speak up to support Ahmedis have to be very careful. The issue with Ahmedis is always pretty closely linked to the issue with blasphemy and of protecting the "Prophet's honor" in Pakistan. Many people have been killed over the blasphemy issue and even those who would say that blasphemy laws need to be revised were killed. You can look up the murder of Salman Taseer, the chief minister of Punjab (one of Pakistan's 4 provinces, and the largest province by population). Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard for saying that blasphemy laws should be reviewed.
    - pas 6y ago
      Why are Pakistani people dismissive of arguments for support for Ahmedis? Sure, it might be ultimately their own making, but how much of that is the product of brainwashing by certain rival groups trying to gain power? It seems the people are just as much trapped in this, even if they don't realize. (Like the QAnon cultists in the US. And there's a very big political party in the US basically cheering them on for very-very-very short sighted goals.) People ought to know better, people have the responsibility to better themselves, their thought patterns, their reasoning, refine their worldview ... but if their ability to do so is already thin, it's hard to blame people, since - it seems - they had very little power to act responsible.

mindslight 6y ago

Actually there is. Don't set up physical presences in oppressive countries. Architect your software to not rely on singular chokepoints like centralized servers. We've seem to have forgotten this, because it's not economically expedient. But we shouldn't give these companies a pass for having set themselves up to be instruments of totalitarianism.

mcguire 6y ago
According to the article, Pakistan (along with China, Vietnam, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia among others) requires physical presence and data localization in order to do business.
- mindslight 6y ago
  Or what? A physical presence is one of the only leverage points they'd have over you. If you don't accede to that, what are they going to do? Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple could have set themselves up this way, likely with the full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to and now predictably find themselves being used to implement totalitarianism. Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is finding themselves under such pressure, because they simply don't have the technical capability to control what users run on their computers.
  - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
    > Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, I agree with your general point but not this part. Apple products still find their way into countries with no Apple Stores. I don't think selling physical products really makes the situation much sticker. If Apple chose to be a pure hardware company and refused to do any business in Pakistan, Pakistanis could still purchase Apple devices through the usual resellers and/or [black/gray]markets. Pakistan would have no leverage over Apple, as you point out, and Apple would not be a participant in the implementation totalitarianism (as they presently are.)

MikeUt 6y ago

Notice that Debian wasn't forced to take down any apps, which shows choice 3: Do not place themselves in the position of arbiters of what apps their users may run (either by technical locks, such as Apple, or by making alternatives extremely inconvenient, such as Google).

mabbo 6y ago

> A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an ethical person. You're just an opportunist. Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them, well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing. Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.

sneak 6y ago
Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law, operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to iPhone users in China. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-complicates-apples-chest-thumping-about-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...
- alacombe 6y ago
  Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies) complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the almighty $$.
  - mensetmanusman 6y ago
    Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance and left China I thought? It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...
    - bitL 6y ago
      It always starts with a "new leadership"...
    - LiberatedLlama 6y ago
      No matter what the PR departments of these corporations would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's always about the money. These corporations are fair-weather activists at best.

nomoreusernames 6y ago

french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had this thing where they chopped of skin from their babies genitals. would you be ok with that? why is it ok when religious people do it? clearly following dogma in this case over reason is the symptom of mental illness or damage. religions are much more oppressive if you ask me. they function without a state or government. they are a low evolved form of government used to gain power.

dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. This is exactly what we don't want here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
webmobdev 6y ago
> french secularism is beautiful. As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some what extremist (but understand their historic roots). Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and European democracy (especially France), but is not similar: The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion. ('Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religious-faith-seeds-of-hatred-madras-high-court-evangelist-fir-169464 https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religi... ). In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it has to compete with religious ideas for its existence. So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity in a government office or in public schools. So unlike France (and some other European states) that would frown on a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in government office, all these practices are quite common in India. One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust. And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like ours, restricting cultural practices can create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of each other when they are exposed to each others culture, including religious ones, and understand it. Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for the majority to understand the minority, and the minority to be comfortable in the society because everyone is encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if not acceptance). Another reasoning is that the state understands that every human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and thus eschews being anti-religious. Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it encourages reformists to work with the respective section of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable and lasting in society. We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are now facing the same issue as the political party in power tries to push a religious identity on to our country and make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed in India.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Apple is in a self imposed category of only legit legal way to install software on users devices and is thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion. The logical thing is to make Apple decide between servicing the entire American and European market and caving to repressive regimes.

tim333 6y ago
>thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion Many religions actually predate iphone apps and thus may be able to get on without them. I think Moses himself got by with basic html though I may be wrong on that.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  You probably wouldn't allow Comcast to filter out all catholic content for subscribers even though the internet hadn't been thought of when the religion was founded.

COGlory 6y ago

So is ethically IBM criticism free for their role in the holocaust?

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Are any people with a role in the holocaust still working at IBM? Companies are not a suoernatural force, they are conposed of people.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

So american companies will compromise on their own freedom, an important american value and principle, for the sake of pursuing profit in foreign countries. They'd rather obey a foreign dictator than lose their business.

notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Why is it a compromise on their own freedom? Are American companies not free to choose where and who with to do business?

birksherty 6y ago

Apple Google are villains because they control what and how app installs by having the app store. If it was like Windows pc it wouldn't be like this. They chose this method, in applied case a walled garden that only they can control, so must be responsible.