Earlier quoted context omitted.
The argument isn't that the lack of political freedom in China is tolerable because that's just how Chinese culture is, but rather that corporations must not be the ones deciding which laws are applicable where.
>corporations must not be the ones deciding which laws are applicable where. This is literally restating this: >the lack of political freedom in China is tolerable because that's just how Chinese culture is Who decides when and where it is okay to disobey laws that restrict freedom/privacy? If not the modern day multi-nation states of corporations, who? Serfs?
Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
121–130 of 209 posts
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#122As much as I dislike Apple, they made the right choice here. While it may be easy to praise Apple's stance against FBI backdooring the iPhone's secure boot and condemn their compliance with removing VPN apps from the Chinese app store, the latter policy is completely unlike the former for several good reasons. With the Chinese market, you need to choose your battles. Removing VPN apps from the Appstore does not compr…
That's such BS. VPN apps are banned because they give users privacy. So it's logical that by removing them it hurts people's privacy in China.
> and does not prevent existing users of these apps from continuing to use them on their devices.
And that's a copout and you know it. As soon as people reset their phones or buy new ones they won't be able to "continue using them". Taking that as a "win" is absurd.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Global companies are instrumental in transmitting western values to the rest of the world. You can't antagonize host countries but at the same time you can't ignore the arc of the moral universe. Domestically, a great example is the economic repercussion for southern states that tried to pass trans bathroom laws. Co…
So by that logic, Chinese companies should push Chinese values on the rest of the world. Are you okay with that? And if not, what makes Western values special? Absent an independent moral authority (i.e. God of some sort), there's no way to say that Western values even should be spread. Absent an independent moral authority, pushing your values on everyone else is exactly what the Chinese government is doing. The tra…
That's a philosophical challenge but not a real argument. Obviously we can, we do, and we must make moral distinctions despite the handicap of our lack of omniscience.
One way we do it is by the use of reason, which separates humans from beasts and our current world from the Dark Ages. There are arguments against the universality of these values, but the one above isn't one of them.
If Chinese law required Apple to hand over names and locations of its users for mass executions, obviously the moral relativism argument wouldn't hold. The issue here is that VPNs are a less clear moral issue - obviously it would be better if Chinese people had free speech, but is it worth Apple fighting a battle for it? Another way to ask: Is it ok for Apple to sacrifice their rights in order to make more money?
I'll also point out that the values are not "Western", but universal. The people of Taiwan and Hong Kong strongly embrace these values. As do the people of India, Japan, South Korea, most South American countries, South Africa, all the protestors of the Arab Spring from Iran to North Africa, etc. The only people who say otherwise are the dictators and oppressors, who conveniently find that their cultures are not conducive to freedom (Putin is making the same argument these days - it's a universal value of dictators).
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I'll venture that it's still wrong to prevent access to VPNs (divide the blame up however you'd like) but likening this to the FBI backdoor request is an enormous false equivalence.
You also don't know what the other options were. Banning VPN apps is a better response than only allowing compromised VPN clients.
True. But China is doing both. It's only allowing VPNs that are compromised. So if you are somehow still surprised that you can use a VPN in China after the dust settles, you should know that VPN is likely compromised in China.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#125I don't think Apple has any other choice, except to open up iOS system so that it doesn't have the responsibility to censor apps. It's interesting to see how Apple's centralized control turns out to be a convenient tool for authoritarian governments.
Yes, "interesting" -- and completely predictable. Some of us have said this from day one of the closed garden app store.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Is it culturalism to say that Western cultures value free speech? If you just wanted to say that parent was wrong that Chinese don't value free speech, why the diatribe about culturalism and racism? You also haven't really put forward any argument that the Chinese value free speech - you can make a base argument that it's valued in some Western countries because the…
You seem to omit that's possible that we have universal pricinciples that's superior to whatever culture. You can attain these principles via philosophy. Any individuals can rediscover the values of free speech, freedom of government arbitrary, freedoms of thoughts and actions by just reflexion itself.
By claiming there's some Universal Principal that's superior is basically saying that you're own beliefs and culture (presumably the one and the same as the proported Universal Principle) is superior.
This isn't mathematics where there's some objective truth.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.
>>> The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status. They don't have any fear about that. The CCP is widely supported and deeply entrenched in Chinese society. This is just about preventing civil unrest/promoting a "harmonious society".
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. What happens if you make your displeasure with the CCP known publically?
Assuming it was a rhetorical question: I am basing my observation on many private conversations I had over the years (e.g. with my wife). I think most foreigners in China would agree with this as well. In case your question wasn't rhetorical: nothing would happen. That is, unless you were a very public figure or made it your life's mission. Fun fact: China has a very low incarceration rate, about 15% that of the USA.…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China
I know, it's a hard pill to swallow.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. The US Government is supposed to represent the people, and thus must uphold that people's values. The US government is a moral agent. A person is a moral agent. Though many here are happy to concede the reality that Apple is comprised of individuals and that it exists as an organisation as a part of society, and just view it as a profit-maximising entity. This is perverse. A corporation is a moral agent, and…
>A corporation is a moral agent I otherwise agree, but I don't know if Apple is a moral agent - that discussion will into quite complex philosophical issues. But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent.
I am not so sure that's true. If every agent is acting morally, then does the sum of those actions constitute morality? I think so.
Apple has some agents who are not moral agents. I suspect that all corps are like this.
Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be hypocritical to say someone is wrong while, on the same point, say someone else is right (despite the actions being the same). It's not hypocritical to say someone is wrong without mentioning all the other people are wrong. You can't list literally every bad thing that happens in every press release, and you can scope criticism.
It's hypocritical for the US to say China's government is wrong because the US government doesn't a lot of nasty things as well.