Fanatics also have a tendency to try to latch onto whatever details may offer a respite from the narrative. The core problem here is that Apple is effectively p

Fanatics also have a tendency to try to latch onto whatever details may offer a respite from the narrative. The core problem here is that Apple is effectively putting code designed to inform the government of criminal activity on the device. It’s a bad precedent. Apple gave its legendary fan base a fair few facts to latch onto; the first being that it’s a measure against child abuse, which can be used to equate detractors to pedophile apologists or simply pedophiles (these days, more likely directly to the latter.) Thankfully this seems cliché enough to have not been a dominant take. Then there’s the fact that right now, it only runs in certain situations where the data would currently be unencrypted anyways. This is extremely interesting because if they start using E2EE for these things in the future, it will basically be uncharted territory, but what they’re doing now is only merely lining up the capability to do that and not actually doing that. Not to mention, these features have a tendency to expand in scope in the longer term. I wouldn’t call it a slippery slope, it’s more like an overton window of how much people are OK with a surveillance state. I’d say Americans on the whole are actually pretty strongly averse to this, despite everything, and it seems like this was too creepy for many people. Then there’s definitely the confusion; because of course, Apple isn’t doing anything wrong; everyone is just confusing what these features do and their long-term implications. Here’s where I think it backfired: because it runs on the device, psychologically it feels like the phone is not trustworthy of you. And because of that, using anti-CSAM measures as a starting point was a Terrible misfire, because to users, it just feels like your phone is constantly assuming you could be a pedophile and need to be monitored. It feels much more impersonal when a cloud service does it off into the distance for all content. In practice, the current short-term outcome doesn’t matter so much as the precedent of what can be done with features like this. And it feels like pure hypocrisy coming from a company whose CEO once claimed they couldn’t build surveillance features into their phones because of pressures for it to be abused. It was only around 5 years ago. Did something change? I feel like to Apple it is really important that their employees and fans believe they are actually a principled company who makes tough decisions with disregard for “haters” and luddites. In reality, though, I think it’s only fair to recognize that this is just too idealistic. Between this, the situation with iCloud in China, and the juxtaposition of their fight with the U.S. government, one can only conclude that Apple is, after all, just another company, though one whose direction and public relations resonated with a lot of consumers. A PR misfire from Apple of this size is rare, but I think what it means for Apple is big, as it shatters even some of the company’s most faithful. For Google, this kind of misfire would’ve just been another Tuesday. And I gotta say, between this and Safari, I’m definitely not planning on my next phone being from Cupertino.