Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 209 posts

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#161

Post by djdjfjd »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #105
thr1234 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't making a fair comparison here. You will never be able to make a 1-1 comparisons between individuals in two countries. Jeff Bezos and Jack Ma are different people and live in different countries; their actions are based on their environment. The heart of your argument is that a corporation is executing a transaction that could possible be illegal elsewhere: the US or Western Europe is better because this wo…

What aboutism Malaysia's 1MDB? It ain't just American companies involved in that mess, plenty of Chinese companies are as well.

Tim Leissner was allegatedly involved in helping transfer money out of the funds for money laundering.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#163

Post by thr1234 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #105
thr1234 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't making a fair comparison here. You will never be able to make a 1-1 comparisons between individuals in two countries. Jeff Bezos and Jack Ma are different people and live in different countries; their actions are based on their environment. The heart of your argument is that a corporation is executing a transaction that could possible be illegal elsewhere: the US or Western Europe is better because this wo…

What aboutism Malaysia's 1MDB? It ain't just American companies involved in that mess, plenty of Chinese companies are as well.

You are not using the term "What aboutism" right. My argument isn't about Americans does it also, but rather providing counter argument to op's that it is "unthinkable" to think it would happen in the US or Western Europe.

I also fail to see how Chinese companies has anything related to my argument. Just because Chinese companies were involved doesn't weaken it.

You are seeing things through tinted shades before you even have the chance to analyze my argument. You are framing the argument as China vs US. I am pointing out the flaw in op's argument. See the difference ;). Your reply was rude.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#164

Post by pimmen »

olalonde wrote: post #87
schoen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with attempts to prevent governments from controlling speech, have spent a fair amount of time working on that, and was disturbed by Apple's role here, I don't think the dichotomy you present works as cleanly as you suggest. State power and culture shape and reinforce each other in an extremely complex way.

That's true. 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. Ignorance plays a role but it's mainly that they value economic growth (and therefore, political stability) over anything else. Free speech would be nice but when you go from near starvation to owning a house and a car, you learn what economic growth does and start to value…

The thing is though that the economic growth came after, and as a result of, the market deregulations and special economic zones instituted by the Deng administration. The founding principles of the CCP has been proven not to work in China, they led to millions of people starving to death and a huge brain drain to the US, Europe, Hong Kong and Taiwan the effects of which are still felt today.

So, I wonder if it's not all ignorance. I just don't see how anyone with access to uncensored history books can give credit to the CCP for the economic growth. Surely they could tell that Taiwan, also a Chinese country, has a far better track record when it comes to economic growth and the well being of their population (not to say that the Kuomintang has a squeaky clean record)?

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#165

Post by honestoHeminway »

Lets assume that censorship for any given tech is allready existing and tight.

That means censorship only will struggle when new tech arrives and deploys to fast. This means, most vital for the fight against censorship is actually the development of new tech that is censorship resistant. This means tech that is not of the walled garden variety- tech that allows users to chose other severs, circumvent the defaults, allows users to run a local service instead of a centralized server. Tech that allows to draw copys of softwar without central registration. Apple by beeing apple does harm to free speach right there. The VPN removal is just the cherry on top.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#166

Post by zmb_ »

coldtea wrote: post #141
mustacheemperor wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.

> And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others (something that's based on one's own culture and, when intervened and enforced, is often interpreted by their own national interests -- like "bringing democracy"). Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for exam…

> Only you don't get to decide what's a "fundamental human right" for others

If you accept the concept of "fundamental human rights", then it seems to me that they are rights that are derived from the simple fact of being a human, regardless of what your culture or rulers currently impose on you, and which you accept axiomatically. That is what makes them "fundamental", rather than just the (larger) set of normal rights afforded to you by your state.

I could easily see things like having the right to not be held as a slave as belonging to such a fundamental set.

> Not to mention that what's "free speech" is not clear cut, most EU countries for example have totally different laws than the US

I think the issue is more about how much trespassing on the freedom of speech is allowed by different jurisdictions. Even in Europe very few argue that holocaust denial laws, or blasphemy laws are not a trespass on freedom of speech. It is just that many accept them. And many, including myself, do not, because it has had a chilling effect of public discourse on many important issues.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#167

Post by d33 »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #165

Lets assume that censorship for any given tech is allready existing and tight. That means censorship only will struggle when new tech arrives and deploys to fast. This means, most vital for the fight against censorship is actually the development of new tech that is censorship resistant. This means tech that is not of the walled garden variety- tech that allows users to chose other severs, circumvent the defaults, al…

> Lets assume that censorship for any given tech is allready existing and tight.

That's an interesting assumption, though one could argue otherwise. How did you come up with this reasoning?

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#168

Post by nabla9 »

coldtea wrote: post #139
_ptgt wrote: post #26

Earlier 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. And that's China's own problem (or lack thereof) as a sovereign nation, not something for Apple or the US to decide. Not every country wants (or even works better) with a US style system, and interventionism has led to disastrous results in the not that far past.

So was apartheid.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#169

Post by Udo_Schmitz »

Jyaif wrote: post #152
MBCook wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. That's why neither iMessage nor FaceTime use encryption in china. Because they don't care. Oh wait, Apple still uses into end encryption in China for both of those so that the Government Camp spy on people. Getting rid of VPN apps is part of staying in China. So the question you have to ask is which is better for Apple to do: stay trying out without VPNs but keeping their consumer products encrypted whe…

Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well... But there's nothing wrong with staying in China to increase profits, it's their biggest market after all.

Citation needed.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#170

Post by dahauns »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #128
olalonde wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

China has a lower incarceration rate, but they also have a higher rate of execution. Even for things like drug trafficking (which most of the US prison population consists of). These stricter punishments surely make people more afraid of breaking the law...and I'm sure many chinese are justifiably afraid of speaking out due to fear of the consequences. So the fact that there is a smaller prisoner population isn't tha…

>These stricter punishments surely make people more afraid of breaking the law

Actually, far from surely.

Post reply on HN