This isn't censorship, this is just a private company deciding who is and isn't allowed on their platform. All Ahmadiyya muslims have to do is start their own company to make mobile phones and probably their own search engine as well.
> This isn't censorship, this is just a private company deciding who is and isn't allowed on their platform This fits the definition of censorship. Maybe you meant to say this isn't governmental censorship? Edit: Poe's law
I think you miss gadders' point. This was the response when private companies "censored" the extreme right in response to January 6.
So, is it right in one case and wrong in the other? If so, why?
The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem. If you live in a society without religious freedom, that's a big problem, but Apple and Google can't fix it. If you care about the problem, it's important to understand this. If you succeed in getting people to focus on symptom of the problem and not the cause, you will help prevent it from being addressed.
Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.
Those open platforms exist. Can the apps in question be downloaded in Pakistan via F-Droid?
Pakistan has a constitution. Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government. There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution.
> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.
People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech, and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that ethical principle begs the question of the ethical principle itself.
Pakistan's persecution of the Ahmadis is despicable (and that of Hindus, and Christians), and Apple and Google's meek compliance is craven.
I'd say I always found it strange how Ahmadis are universally persecuted in Pak, but a dozen way more funnier sects thrive. You constantly see some weird pirs, and "faith healers" on TV in Pakistan.
Yet England feel way more secular than USA in practice, given how much Christianity seems to matter in US politics.
The highly religious nature of US settlers is directly connected to our secular freedoms. A lot of early settlers were pretty extreme practicers of their religions and faced persecution in Europe. They left to practice their religion in a place where they wouldn't be burned as a heretic. It's interesting that these opposing extremists were able to get along separately by agreeing to keep the government secular
It's an interesting piece of American history worth drilling down on.
The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom originated from one of the Southern colonies, which tended towards more English mainstream religion (Jefferson himself was raised in the Church of England, but considered himself a Deist). It served as a sort of "non-aggression pact" between the religions, since the various sects of the Northern colonies had quite a bit of political power by virtue of concentration of their adherents and isolation from traditional European religious power.
The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem. If you live in a society without religious freedom, that's a big problem, but Apple and Google can't fix it. If you care about the problem, it's important to understand this. If you succeed in getting people to focus on symptom of the problem and not the cause, you will help prevent it from being addressed.
Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.
Just as we have laws that prevent US organizations from giving or taking bribes even in countries where bribes are legal (FCPA), and US laws prevent US individuals from overseas sex tourism which would be illegal on US soil, what prevents us from requiring US organizations not to participate in religious oppression, child exploitation, and other such acts?
Yet England feel way more secular than USA in practice, given how much Christianity seems to matter in US politics.
The highly religious nature of US settlers is directly connected to our secular freedoms. A lot of early settlers were pretty extreme practicers of their religions and faced persecution in Europe. They left to practice their religion in a place where they wouldn't be burned as a heretic. It's interesting that these opposing extremists were able to get along separately by agreeing to keep the government secular
Yes, and that’s related to the formation of the Church of England too. The religious settlements in the reign of Elizabeth I and others aimed to bring Catholic-leaning and Protestant-leaning believers together in one broad church, but it couldn’t accommodate every sect, so some were excluded from the national church, persecuted, and eventually left. You can still see the division today in high and low Anglican churches.
Pakistan has a constitution. Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government. There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution.
> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.
Astute observation.
Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue.
The entire discussion to me is as simple as I stated.
> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.
People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech, and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that ethical principle begs the question of the ethical principle itself.
Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.