341–350 of 515 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies) complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the almighty $$.
Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance and left China I thought? It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...
While I agree that banning religious apps is particularly objectionable, it's interesting to compare the response to Pakistan banning US apps and India banning Chinese apps.
What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"? Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics. Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.
Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?
I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.
Just another reason why you don't want companies like Apple and Google to be the gatekeepers. Technology can set you free, but only if you let it. If you don't, it can easily become a new tool of oppression.
Sigh The problem here lies with Pakistan, not Apple and Google. An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them. The most Apple and Google can do is leave the market. There's an argument for that, but that doesn't make those apps available in Pakistan, and, more importantly, doesn't end the oppression of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan. There are arguments against gatekeepi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. In this particular case, what problem would open platforms solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple and Google should be on the hook for solving religious prob…
Each of the two alternate steps you mentioned are an order of magnitude more difficult than just banning the app.
Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I believe the best approach to the problem is solving it bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing "western morals" on a developing country.
They could have at least spelled Nancy Pelosi correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan. This isn't really supported by how other similar devices are treated. We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level censorship functionality inserted into it, as the behest of governments. The idea that a country would stop all phones from being purchased, if phones simply worked similarly to PCs, sounds about as unlikely as a country block…
> We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level censorship functionality inserted into it, as the behest of governments. I mean, that literally did almost happen once, right here in the US of A. And sure, points to you, no country has yet attempted it since then, but also, China has locked onto a much more productive and efficient model; controlling the flow of information itself, rather than the client devices at h…
> controlling the flow of information itself, rather than the client devices at hand.
It is still significantly harder to enact censorship on a wide scale as china is trying to do, than it is to simply change 2 app stores.
The stuff that china is doing, is much more difficult. It uses a lot of resources, and is not perfect.
I would rather more barriers be put up, so as to make censorship more difficult, wherever possible.
And making phones more open is another such barrier, that makes censorship more difficult.
Rights are not binary. Oppression and censorship is a spectrum, and taking actions against such oppression makes the oppression less effective, even if some oppression still happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.
But Google leaving hasn’t improved the civil rights situation in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond the scope of Googles.
If Google is nice to the government, perhaps their good behavior will be remembered when it comes to voting on new legislation that would harm their business and shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what problem would open platforms solve? If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there were many competing app stores, then people could get around theses bans more easily. For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone, and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so, via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if Apple banned the app from the app store. > whats stopping a country…
You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country, while the business is working against the interests of said government. Apple and Google are businesses who operate in various countries with the objective of making money. I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be in charge of engineering social behavior around the world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold in the country.
It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country.
> should be in charge of engineering social behavior
Intel is already selling PCs though.
Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics?
> In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?