Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nah, I don't think it is a false dichotomy in this case. It seems unlikely to me in the extreme that China is going to change its policies in response to pressure from some foreign company, even one as large as Apple. That is still a false dichotomy. They don't necessarily have to change the policy in order to render it ineffective. Apple is full of smart people. They could think of something if they had to . Other…
> Apple is full of smart people. They could think of something if they had to. Funny that is the _exact_ same argument that politicians have made about secure backdoors in communication software for use by "law enforcement only". > free speech and privacy Why is that doing wrong? The causality is based in Western humanistic moral belief. You simply should not force your morals on other cultures and countries.
The government's argument is that we have the ingenuity to land a man on the moon, therefore it should be no problem to land a man on the sun.
You're arguing that because we can't land a man on the sun, there is no way to land a man on the moon.
The reason the government uses that argument is that it's generally true. Application of resources and ingenuity solves problems. Secure encryption back doors are in the exception box next to perpetual motion machines and faster than light communication.
Subverting censorship is not. People do that all the time.
> Why is that doing wrong? The causality is based in Western humanistic moral belief.
It is doing wrong because free speech is the best known method of preventing civil war. War being right at the top of the list of the most evil things in human experience.
And we're talking about Western beliefs because we're talking about Western people demanding Western values of a Western company.