8 ms·
FWIW, everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety" -- despite how that
by saurik 1y ago
FWIW, everyone who claims that Apple fundamentally needs the centralized ability to control apps on their platforms "for everyone's safety" -- despite how that obviously and repeatedly makes them become patsies for governments all over the world to enforce their censorship regimes -- are complicit in this stuff (in addition, of course, to the people who build it at Apple...).
- ipnon 1y agoWhat exactly do you mean by “complicit” in “this stuff”? What are you accusing?
- rockskon 1y agoQuite clearly accusing them of reducing public pressure against Apple putting itself in a position where it's doing exactly what it's doing right now.
- freedomben 1y agoYep. If you're advocating for a policy that leads directly to something, then you're kind of arguing in favor of that something
- no_wizard 1y agoIt’s a shame too, because Apple has the money and brand wherewithal to fight the government. See the FBI vs Apple stuff that happened years ago. That actually won them some real converts. Capitulating over this is Apple showing their supposed core values have significantly hollowed
- PokestarFan 1y agoIt was obvious Apple was going to bend the knee with that gold plaque.
- covercash 1y agoI wish Steve was still around for these battles. Tim Cook is such a pussy.
- ivape 1y agoSteve was never tested like this was he? Everyone’s about values until they are put into a fucked up situation like Tim Cook. The man had to literally deliver a Roman tribute to this president personally.
- mikepurvis 1y agoAnd that shouldn't have happened either. Apple doesn't need the US government, and Tim is himself a billionaire— he sure as hell doesn't personally need them either.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoHe could have refused. Few things would sway public opinion on tariffs like more expensive i devices.
- prokopton 1y agoI think Steve would’ve packed it in and retired if he was still around today.
- g-b-r 1y agoIt was Steve who decided to make the iphones like this.
- stingraycharles 1y agoIsn’t Apple mostly interested in making more money, though, instead of spending money? The way I see it of all the top tech giants, Apple has the most to lose with all the tariff shenanigans, so it’s in their [shareholders] interest to stay friends with the current administration. Apple has never had moral values other than earning money by making great products. And I say this as someone who is deeply embedded in the Apple ecosystem.
- valleyer 1y agoI am an Apple shareholder. My Apple shareholder interest is for Apple to preserve its reputation in the long term, including when Trump is long gone. Please stop repeating this "shareholders only care about short-term money" idea.
- xvector 1y agoI'm also a shareholder and I'd say I'm pretty happy with Apple not needlessly getting involved in fights. The most important thing is not getting tariffed. Their reputation will be fine, no one but the terminally online are going to stop buying an iPhone because of this. Pretty sure most of their shareholders feel similarly.
- valleyer 1y agoI agree that most people will not hear about this app being removed. (Though note that it's being reported here in "normal people" news, not tech news.) But it's far from the only way Cook has aligned himself with Trump in just the last few months. The dumb gold-glass plaque and the UK royal visit are two much more visible examples.
- xvector 1y agoDoing what he needs to avoid tariffs is fine in my book. It's practically his responsibility towards shareholders.
- spaceguillotine 1y agothe only time apple fights the government is when they want to keep illegally firing people and then the NLRB just goes, well sorry they just have too much money to stop them. They use bribe money for everything else.
- scarface_74 1y agoWhy would you expect Apple to fight the same administration that it has been prostrating itself for both this term and the last term? Apple hasn’t had any values aside from its bottom line since Cook took over.
- rekttrader 1y agoWhen’s your next court date against Apple? Let’s hope the California government can stand against this type of federal overreach.
- beeflet 1y agoI have no hope that the solution can be solved through lawfare. The ability of one company to control what the vast majority of people can do with their phones is unacceptable, regardless of what happens with this one app.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoIndeed. Web app, SMS, Signal, etc. Have to decouple from centralized systems.
- sandworm101 1y agoThe vast majority of the people on this planet have never touched an iphone. Android dominates basically everywhere outside north america and, interestingly, the DPRK.
- goku12 1y agoGoogle does the same with the rest of the population, don't they? The methods are different, but the results are the same.
- heavyset_go 1y agoThey make some policies, restrictions and changes to their revenue confiscation schemes in lockstep with Apple, or they lag behind them by some years. But yes, eventually the results are the same: the frog gets boiled.
- sandworm101 1y agoExcept the phones that aren't useing googles app store, such as many Chinese phones and grapheneos users.
- renewiltord 1y ago[flagged]
- clarkmoody 1y agoFor all the talk of Trump being Hitler, I never saw any real tax protest movement to defund the regime...
- philipov 1y agoMost people have their taxes withheld directly from their pay by their employer, and don't get the option to not pay their taxes, because the government gets the money before they do.
- pkaeding 1y agoBecause the employers are 'complicit' in paying these payroll taxes, and the employees are 'complicit' in supporting them by showing up for work. /s
- no_wizard 1y agoIt’s simply not that easy to do, nor is it the best approach per se, as it’s wrought with foot guns everywhere. Frankly it’s a big risk from a number of angles, one of the most obvious is such a movement being co-opted by special interests
- Der_Einzige 1y agoUnironically it's because liberals actually like paying taxes. Every state and local school board tax increase passes where I live because it's a bunch of pot smoking hippies who unironically believe in wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.
- angoragoats 1y agoHow is a tax increase to fund schools wealth redistribution?
- andsoitis 1y ago> are complicit in this stuff I don’t know that that is fair. This framing is designed to shame people into feeling guilty for their point of view, rather than their actions. Being complicit means to be knowingly involved in or facilitating an illegal or wrongdoing act. In my books, it requires a level of participation that I don’t think your characterization meets.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- beeflet 1y agoThe wrongdoing is supporting this company's dominance, which enables this level of censorship.
- andsoitis 1y agoYou’re still not shaming me.
- saagarjha 1y agoMaybe the framing was not intended to do so?
- bigyabai 1y agoBud Tribble was shaming Apple cronies in 1981 when he put "reality distortion effect" in circulation. You can feel however you want, but everyone can see the truth for what it is. Been that way for a while now.
- beeflet 1y agoIf you buy apple products, work for the company or own its stock then you are financially facilitating this. I don't know who you are and I don't care, I am just saying this is the basic cause and effect. Things cannot improve unless stakeholders use their levers to change or abandon the company.
- deleted 1y ago
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y agoThe problem isn't the centralized control, it's the power the governments have.
- g-b-r 1y agoI guess that iphones will be alright when no government in the world will have that power anymore, then
- rurp 1y agoIt's both. Apple very intentionaly designs their phones so that they can immediately cut off their user's access to various apps with the flip of a switch and no recourse. It's obvious that this has and will continue to be abused. At the same time the government of an ostensibly free country that values free speech should absolutely not be making these demands. At this point I expect such behavior from this administration, they aren't pretending to be anything other than incompetent and corrupt. Shame on Apple for helping these scumbags, now and in the future.
- jjav 1y ago> The problem isn't the centralized control, it's the power the governments have. The governments will always have the power, that's pretty much built into the definition of government. So, technology needs to be built with this reality in mind. Thus, avoid all centralization.
- b_e_n_t_o_n 1y agoThe government is a centralization of power, it doesn't matter if our devices are "decentralized" if the government can simply make it illegal to use unlocked devices. Or encryption. Or VPNs. Etc.
- saurik 1y agoBut that isn't how this has worked, even in places like China where the regime would seem to have that level of power: while they absolutely require Apple--who went out of their way to create a bottleneck on software and information that is just too juicy not to assert external control over--to remove various apps from their store, it is not actually illegal to own or use unlocked devices.
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoAny clue how Apple is justifying this? What rules did these apps allegedly break? Is it blocked globally, or only for U.S. app store phones? Are downloads blocked, or is the app being removed from phones it's already on?
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoThe rule it breaks is Trump doesn’t like it. So Tim Cook bends the knee as the spineless little man he is.
- godelski 1y agoOkay, but that's not what's being asked now is it? What's being asked is the explanation. They aren't telling saying to the public "we love the taste of boots" even if it is true.
- angoragoats 1y agoNo one would ever say this explicitly, but Tim Cook has very clearly shown it by his own personal actions and those of his company.
- godelski 1y agoOkay, but you haven't answered the question either. Do you not think I'm not aware that Apple is bending the knee? I'm pretty confident JumpCrissCross knows that too. The question isn't about what's underneath the mask. The question is about what the mask is. What they're pretending the actual reason is. No one here is asking for the real reason because we're already aware. We're indicating it in the comments too. So by trying to tell us what's beneath the mask you're just creating more noise and making it harder to identify the mask
- angoragoats 1y agoOh, well, a quick Google gives you the answer I think you're looking for: > In an email to ICEBlock creator Joshua Aaron, Apple wrote that “upon re-evaluation,” the app does not comply with its app store guidelines around “objectionable” and “defamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content,” according to a copy of the message viewed by CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/tech/iceblock-apple-removed-trump https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/03/tech/iceblock-apple-removed-t...
- imoverclocked 1y agoI think that Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law. Maybe the problem here isn’t Apple but the rules they are being forced to abide by?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Apple is a company that has to obey the rule of law Damn right. Where is the court order? Pursuant to what law?
- imoverclocked 1y ago[flagged]
- magicalist 1y agoYou left out the pretty important part of § 372 "by force, intimidation, or threat". Please don't just make up cover for capitulation. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372
- imoverclocked 1y ago[flagged]
- magicalist 1y agoSo you're suggesting that prior restraint on constitutionally protected speech is justified because Pam Bondi, mouthpiece for the president, asserts that publishing publicly observable information about federal officers is designed to put them at risk from waves hands, and not that the risk, if there actually was one, should be dealt with from whatever she's waving her hands about? It's always funny when people are willing to toss the first amendment completely under the bus because of made-up risks but god help you if you suggest putting guardrails on the scope of the second amendment because of actual risks.
- ksec 1y agoMay be not complicit, but I think people need to be reminded that the context that Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right and they are the defender of it. Both PR and in court. And this centralised censorship regimes isn't new. It is exactly the same during Hong Kong protest in 2019.
- Vegenoid 1y ago> Apple claims privacy is a fundamental human right And what is “privacy”? An iPhone user is not entitled to keep the apps that they run on their phone private.
- heavyset_go 1y agoGenuinely hope you're successful with your suit, if that's still ongoing.
- saurik 1y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45458944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45458944 (a quick update in another thread fork)