Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

This situation underlines and ideological stance that we all take for granted but that actually went questioned in the past:

That business and human rights are perpendicular issues. Actually it all started from the idea that free market causes a freer society. I think it is now clear that this causality is not true, but now proponents of unregulated free markets changed their stance to "Meh, that's the way we have done for decades, let's just keep that way."

My stance is that a global free-market is a good objective and should be encouraged, that borders should gradually disappear. However, encouraging goods and capital flow through otherwise tight borders is not helping reach that goal.

My theory is that 4 important things cross borders: goods, money, people and information. All 4 must have the same level of freedom. Imbalances should be addressed. For instance, China does not easily let people and information flow in and out of its territory, yet it lets funds flow and even subsidizes goods going out of it (Which is why Shenzhen to LA shipping can be cheaper than SF to LA). We should link these issues together. Either by funding and helping people and information cross these borders or, if impossible, by taxing goods and funds.

Actually a country that prevents people going out of it but let money go in and goods go out is the opposite of what the theory of democratic capitalism is about. It is a setup that allows outsourcing slavery. Free market in that case is not a perpendicular issue to this, but the very cause of the problem.

> Try to foment and support an insurgency or revolution or just invade them yourselves.

This is historically terrible advice.

Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

This is the point John Gruber made:

To me, the more interesting question isn’t whether Apple should be selling its products in China, but rather whether Apple should continue to make the App Store the only way to install apps on iOS devices. A full-on “install whatever you want” policy isn’t going to happen, but something like Gatekeeper on MacOS could.

Keep iOS App Store-only by default. Add a preference in Settings to allow apps to be downloaded from “identified developers” (those with an Apple developer certificate) in addition to the App Store. In that scenario, the App Store is no longer a single choke point for all native apps on the device.

The App Store was envisioned as a means for Apple to maintain strict control over the software running on iOS devices. But in a totalitarian state like China (or perhaps Russia, next), it becomes a source of control for the totalitarian regime.

I don’t expect Apple to do this. They’d rather deal with the negative consequences of the App Store as a choke point than give up the benefits (including the profits) of maintaining complete control over all software on the platform.1 But if you’re angry about Apple’s role in this VPN crackdown in China, I suggest you direct your anger at the App Store as the single source for third-party software.

Sure, if you are an US citizen, you can argue that it should be US government's job to represent your ideals in the wider world. But your government is not the only party responsible for representing your moral or political positions in the world.

For example, the US government collectively is not particularly famous for 100% morally upstanding behavior. Granted, the US behaves often better than other great powers, and certainly it represents many ideals of democracy and liberty more than other contending powers. But consider the mess that was Iran-Contra affair or the various regimes ranging from unsavory authoritarianism to sheer terrorism (with "disappearances" and torture) CIA supported in Latin America in the name of anti-communism. (God forbid someone propose an idea of land reform in South America or advancing workers' and natives' rights against UFC, despite that's how numerous European countries avoided communism.) Did these actions (and various other questionable shenanigans the US government has been partial to) represent your ethical positions?

It's everyone's job to do it, and what any government does is only part of that. For example, you mentioned AAPL stock owners. According to any sane ethical system, the moral duty of any individual CEO or a member of board or stock owner as a human person with rights and corresponding duties to act ethically overrides their financial or legal duty to maximize corporate profits.