3 ms·

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 ent

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.
  - jmull 6y ago
    Not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so. I don't dispute that Apple and Google do gatekeeping. They do. We can discuss the pros and cons of it. But that is simply not issue here.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so. In general, we do not see governments doing this, no. For example, I am sure that some people in Pakistan own intel/windows computers. But Pakistan is not making laws that require every single intel/windows computer to block certain content, at the hardware level of the PC. That is something that seems pretty difficult to enforce on all PCs. If phones worked more like PCs, then it is likely that they would enjoy similar benefits.
      - jpttsn 6y ago
        It would be fun to watch someone calmly and rationally explain this impossibility to the legislator. Perhaps with slides about Turing’s universal machine and the x86 architecture. And while you have their ear, maybe convince them that end to end encryption can’t be safely backdoored, and that cellphone radios won’t crash planes. Legislators have so much respect and patience for technical arguments that limit their power.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
wobbly_bush 6y ago
> If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store.. Android already allows side loading apps which don't have to come from an app store.

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.
- jmull 6y ago
  Not sure you're understanding what I'm saying. The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so. I don't dispute that Apple and Google do gatekeeping. They do. We can discuss the pros and cons of it. But that is simply not issue here.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so. In general, we do not see governments doing this, no. For example, I am sure that some people in Pakistan own intel/windows computers. But Pakistan is not making laws that require every single intel/windows computer to block certain content, at the hardware level of the PC. That is something that seems pretty difficult to enforce on all PCs. If phones worked more like PCs, then it is likely that they would enjoy similar benefits.
    - jpttsn 6y ago
      It would be fun to watch someone calmly and rationally explain this impossibility to the legislator. Perhaps with slides about Turing’s universal machine and the x86 architecture. And while you have their ear, maybe convince them that end to end encryption can’t be safely backdoored, and that cellphone radios won’t crash planes. Legislators have so much respect and patience for technical arguments that limit their power.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

wobbly_bush 6y ago

> If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store.. Android already allows side loading apps which don't have to come from an app store.