4 ms·

> China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people

> China has the great firewall. I'm not an expert on it, but I assume whether Apple allows alternative app stores is entirely beside the point of whether people in HK would be able to download and use a networked app. The HKMap.live situation happened before the Chinese Firewall was in place in Hong Kong (2019), so that's really not an excuse. Regardless, the great firewall doesn't necessarily prevent person-to-person sharing of an app for instance. Ultimately, you should absolutely put the ball in their court to actively have to fight the spreading of the app as opposed to being a willing participant. BTW, Tor, that thing you ignored in the rest of your post, was designed exactly to fight against things like the Chinese Firewall. > I also still think that macOS is a more secure OS by design vs Windows, so that may be another reason I'm picking on Windows. This just makes no sense. If you are making a case against a change, you don't point to the worst implementation of it just because it's the worst, especially when the party that would actually be implementing the alternative has already successfully done so on another platform. It's like a state arguing against marijuana legalization by pointing to a completely different country instead of many of the other US states that have successfully legalized it without catastrophic results. iOS is also "more secure by design". So why do you assume iOS would become Windows and not macOS? There is no logic here, just the desire to use an outdated and more convenient comparison point. If you honestly believe that iOS without the AppStore would become Windows and not the Mac, then you have a very bizarrely low opinion of the engineers on iOS. > I was very clear that I wasn't comparing the situation with the app store to actual literal murder, but that comparison weaves throughout most of your reply. My point was entirely about the implementation and not at all about the regulated activity. Yup, and I have provided several great examples of why the situation is very different, including many examples of things that are not "bad" but Apple could not want on the store. Like Tor. And FireFox. All of which you ignored. I also showed examples of how it doesn't have to be a free-for-all that everyone must be subjected to, and that there are other ways to do it. Also ignored. I addressed the main substance of your argument, while still finding it hilarious that the best analogy you could come up with was an "abstract version of the purge". Listen, I am honestly glad that the circumstances in your life are such that Apple's decisions may not have a meaningful impact on your ability to escape censorship or fight for your right to be heard, but I hope someday you'll understand that these real scenarios that have actually taken place matter as much as your hypothetical worst-case scenarios that involve Apple implementing a slightly different system in the most un-Apply way, as opposed to the way they've done so with tremendous success on their other platform.

sixstringtheory 5y ago
I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. Similarly, I don't accept arguments against socialism because of the trainwrecks from the past that have claimed to be socialist. And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.
- tolmasky 5y ago
  > I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument? > I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. > And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review. *> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious." Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.

sixstringtheory 5y ago

I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. Similarly, I don't accept arguments against socialism because of the trainwrecks from the past that have claimed to be socialist. And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem like you did at the end of your post. You have no idea who I am or my life experience, and even if you did, it's still not a valid argument regardless of my circumstances. Try to be less sanctimonious.

tolmasky 5y ago
> I just don't think it's fair to conflate the decisions one company makes towards what it thinks are good for engineering or business with every possible outcome of those decisions or how others can exploit them. If the consequences of the decisions a company makes aren't a good metric for whether they are good decisions or not, then what is? We're talking about the largest company on Earth that often has a larger effect on the world than many countries do, and you want to take "outcomes" off the table for argument? > I'm not here to argue on the fine points of China policy or human rights. Oh, I'm aware, as you seem more than willing to throw out anachronistic arguments (like using the Chinese Firewall as an excuse before it was in place), and then immediately try to change the subject when it's clear you're out of your depth. > And yes, when presented with a wall of text consisting of mostly emotional arguments talking past my points, I started skimming. I'm not sure how you can know it's emotional when you've admitted to not having read it. I'm also perplexed as to why you bother responding if you aren't willing to read what you're responding to. It's like writing a review for a movie you haven't seen, it's not going to be a good review. *> Finally, you really shouldn't stoop to ad-hominem [...] Try to be less sanctimonious." Some would argue that blanket describing an entire post that someone invested time in writing as "emotional" to the point of not needing to be read is a fairly bold and "sanctimonious" value-judgement. I at least take the time to read your responses before drawing any conclusions.