Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship • Hacker News Board

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#21

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 5:52 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #17

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're arguing against a layman's explanation by linking to a layman's explanation. The first argument is about standing. The second argument is about, apparently, an injunction to remain available during the course of the litigation. They're two separate issues.

No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case. OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

> No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case.

The article is written by a layman and includes a contextless quote from the judge which doesn't appear relevant to the point you're trying to make.

> OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

Accusing someone of not being a lawyer is not a counterargument, it's an ad hominem attack. If they're right, they're right. If they're wrong, where's your evidence?

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#22

Post by soperj » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 5:52 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #11

fnordprefect wrote: post #10

This all comes down to the statement near the end: "I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments" Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries." The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compli…

> Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries." That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or…

>That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.

Same with South Africa and IBM during apartheid.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#23

Post by raylad » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 5:56 AM UTC

There's also this:

U.S. congresswoman calls out Nike, Apple and Coca-Cola for lobbying against Uighur labour bills

Jennifer Wexton says companies are publicly condemning forced labour and privately trying to water down bills

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday...

The companies principally who are lobbying ... to have changes to your bills, are Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola [and] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. What are they trying to do? What changes do they want to make to your laws?

Well, I don't know, because they haven't come to me to try to make changes to my piece of legislation, but the word is that they're trying to water down some of the enforcement provisions while publicly proclaiming that they are very much against and condemning forced labour. They're going behind the scenes and trying to change the law.

If they're against it, if they say that this is not in their interest, then why would they want to change your bills?

Because it's going to impact their supply chains and make it harder for them to profit off of this forced labour.

Which means that they're using the forced labour?

If they're not using it, it wouldn't be a problem. But, you know, it appears that they are using it. And if they are auditing their supply chains the way they're supposed to, this legislation wouldn't be an issue.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#24

Post by sudosysgen » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:03 AM UTC

fnordprefect wrote: post #10

This all comes down to the statement near the end: "I believe Apple should simply refuse to cooperate with oppressive governments" Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries." The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compli…

The solution is incredibly simple.

Allow the iPhone to be fully unlocked, which makes it possible to install any software.

Then, Apple isn't in the position to apply the censorship to begin with, and it can both allow for a way to install these apps, and follow local rules.

It's not some issue that everyone else has to contend with. You can buy a Pixel or an LG in China and install anything you want on it. It's only Apple that has this issue.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#25

Post by Lutger » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:14 AM UTC

infinityplus1 wrote: post #14

Money trumps everything. Everything done under the name of "we're are a privacy respecting company. We care about our users." is just a facade. Apple will sell you out in a heart beat if the law orders them to help them oppress their own citizens. I wonder how do these people sleep at night knowing what they are supporting under the mask of company. What will their children think? "I'm so proud that my dad/mom contri…

Sleeping at night is invariably achieved by dehumanizing the exploited. Chinese lives don't matter much, they are not Americans. Commies live on scraps. Such acts of othering make it easy to circumvent your conscience, this is the foundation of all war and crimes against humanity.

Then, of course, there are also the real bastards, those without conscience, who couldn't care less. They also don't care about American lives, or even their friends or family for that matter. The dumb ones end up in jail and the smart bastards end up running a company.

The rest of us just goes along with what everybody else does, we are too busy anyway to really reflect on our behavior. Need to buy more presents for the holidays!

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#26

Post by enriquto » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

soperj wrote: post #22

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries." That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or…

>That's true, but it doesn't mean your beef is only with the governments, in exactly the same way that IBM's collusion during WWII can't be pinned solely on the German government. They can choose not to do business in that country, or to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice. Same with South Africa and IBM during apartheid.

> Same with South Africa and IBM during apartheid.

And same thing with the U.S.A. today! How do you think that this war-mongering country will be seen a few decades from now? My guess is that it will be seen in the same light as the British Empire of a century ago. True, they had very nice things "inside", but they were totally callous on the countries that they controlled for economical interests (e.g., India, South Africa).

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#27

Post by Hokusai » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:16 AM UTC

Many good points in the article. And the starting point is brilliant: > Extract more revenue from your existing customers

That is the only way forward for a company so used to growth. pressure on its current customers is only going up to buy new services and pay more for the old ones. Old strategies that new tools and a device that is with you 24/7 bring to new abusive levels.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#28

Post by john_minsk » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:19 AM UTC

I just paid for 12 months worth of Skype subscription which I have used for just 2 calls back in January.

I want ALL my subscriptions to go through Apple Pay and App store.

Once I subscribed to New York times. The newspaper that was advertised to me for years in all Hollywood movies as a place where honesty and freedom are of highest priority. I had to spend an hour on a phone with their representatives to cancel it refusing to accept discount or a free subscription.

I don't trust many other companies. Especially if all my interactions with them are virtual and they are not specialized in information technology. At least big tech is quite rich to afford to think about users.

Each bank got their app and added some obvious features there: pay for utilities, for your phone etc. I want more progress here. I want to be able to see all my fees upfront in a clear format. I want to know my credit score. I want to be able to take this credit score to different organizations. etc. etc.

Big hope that fin tech will blow it up, but unfortunately start ups didn't deliver. There are some successful ones, but I think finance is too regulated for them to have a shot at a serious scale. Apple and Google have a shot at that and they will create a road for smaller companies.

The situation in Belarus is bad. And believe me I know. I was concerned as well about my device security. But to be honest at the end of the day it can't be Apple's problem. Belarussian government must be replaced by Belarussian people and Apple has nothing to do with that. And on top of that - what choice do I have. Android devices in Russia are preinstalled with Russian software while Apple's aren't. That's more important sign for me.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#29

Post by Despegar » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:20 AM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #9

jolux wrote: post #2

Saying that Apple banned Epic for "fighting back" is definitely twisting the truth a bit. Epic released a behind-the-scenes software update in direct contravention of the App Store rules, which they knew was going to get them banned.

My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court (to demonstrate damages or whatever). That's not quite the same as (covertly) breaching your contract hoping you get away without getting caught, which is the impression you're giving. Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do— not do something that gets them banned, then have their c…

>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court

This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#30

Post by Lutger » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 6:23 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #18

Complaints about Apple’s censorship shouldn’t be limited to just foreign governments, which is a myopic and self-serving stance I often see in posts like this. It’s important to demand transparent free speech policies across the board for everyone. Like other big tech companies, Apple also censors content that doesn’t align with their progressive biases. They’ve banned numerous conservative apps from their App Store,…

If by conservative you mean antisemitism, white supremacy, far out conspiracy, racism and hate speech: then yes they banned 'conservative' platforms.

That's trying to make a cultural war of broadly accepted, democratic values. It got nothing to do with progressive politics.

If you want to go full libertarian and demand Apple to give freedom to all these medieval hate platforms, you'll have to allow IS and the Al Qaidas of this world their jihadism videos too.