Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus

Post by tripzilch » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

_RPL5_ wrote: post #102

Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…

Post by zepto » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

kodablah wrote: post #269

m3kw9 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure that country can force Apple to comply with local laws. That’s how it works now.

Apple can also choose to challenge it, if not legally there then at least in the court of public opinion as they have done for US government requests. The reason they haven't is either fear of speaking out or that they don't disagree much with the requests. Either way, their silence is a deafening description of their principles.

Post by tripzilch » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:49 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #338

dan-robertson wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue is that public attitudes to doxxing vary between places. What is unacceptable in America may be considered more normal elsewhere. In this specific situation there’s a pretty obvious power imbalance where the public do not wear masks and the authorities would be able to track them down and oppress them later (or just do what they currently do and grab them from the streets at the time). The threat of unmaski…

But the whole point here is that this line of reasoning is limited. If Apple were indiscriminately ordering protestor channels to be taken down, we wouldn't accept an excuse that suppressing protestors is "considered more normal" in Belarus, or an argument that the unique context of Belarus means they have no choice but to restrict speech in ways America wouldn't. So if Apple has strong principles against doxxing peo…

Post by zepto » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

boudin wrote: post #113

_RPL5_ wrote: post #102

Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…

This seems to match this post, where apple is asking to remove telegram groups used to de-anonymize law enforcement members. Apple could do something really simple if they wanted to not interfeer with how people organize their fight: allow to install apps outside of the app store. This would force law enforcement to deal with Telegram directly rather than being able to take advantage of apple's own authoritarian way…

Post by partyboat1586 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

batrat wrote: post #224

nickpp wrote: post #209

So it was fine when Apple banned Infowars but now it’s different? This is exactly what those free speech advocates meant when talking about slippery slopes: you either support free speech or censure. There is no middle ground. Disclaimer: I think Infowars is pure, evil sh*t.

I want what this guy is smoking because I want to believe the government is using chemicals to turn people and frogs gay.