311–320 of 673 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't call it elections. Nothing even close.
Well, it's all in the eye of the beholder. As someone living in Scandinavia looking at the US that doesn't look like elections much either. Pick your favourite animal: A: Black horse B: Brown horse Z: Pony
Like really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet if those crimes were proliferating at the rate that CSAM is, a lot of people would be pursuing more active counter measures
Is there data to show thay CSAM proliferating at a different rate than those crimes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. I understand your trepidation in saying it. That is simply a fact of reality as it stands and how businesses operate under the current incentives, not a value judgement. However, it makes me think that liberal democracies should play hardball. The USA already ha…
I don't think liberal democracies care about these freedoms, other than as a rhetorical stick to hit countries that "illiberal" with. E.g. imprisonment of Julian Assange, removal of Trump from twitter, Atlantic Council as official part of FB content moderation team (w/ the probably-not-coincidental) subsequent removal of pro-Venezuela and far left groups. (Plus also IMO being banned from FB and Twitter are materially…
But then, why do they have laws punishing corruption in a foreign country? And why do they care if one of their citizens travels to a foreign country and performs a sexual act which, while not technically a crime at the current location, would be a crime back home?
Whether the motivation of these rules is purely utilitarian ("We don't want our businesses to get good at corruption, in case they start bringing it back" or "It's easier to catch active paedophiles having this option"), honestly moral ("Corruption/sex tourism is a scourge for developing countries, we must do anything to stop it") or even cynically electoral ("Let's look tough on crime to win votes"), any of these three options could be applied to a law against collaboration with repressive regimes.
In particular, given the dependence of our economies on the likes of Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, etc. and the increased power of China, I think that the utilitarian motivation should be enough. We don't want businesses that are so entrenched in our day-to-day to be so cozy with repressive authoritarian regimes which may sooner than later start to apply their own requirements on how businesses should operate in other countries if they want to have access to their own lucrative market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even Navalny and his supporters are not calling for foreign companies to all pull out of Russia. What makes you think you know better what is good for the Russian people and the opposition groups than Russians and the opposition groups themselves? How many of Russia's Apple employees think Apple is "participating in dictatorship" by employing them? How many Russian citizens, including the political opposition, do you…
The actual problem is not that Apple removed the app. It's that there is no other way to install the app if Apple removes it from their store.
Reuters doesn't report this, but the government officials threatened the companies (Apple and Google) with jail time for their employees yesterday. After that the companies finally conceded. There's a short video fragment from the meeting of the government officials and the companies representatives. It's worth watching, especially if you come from a democratic nation. Letting your Russian employees be persecuted don…
I disagree. Western companies have no moral obligation to bend their own ethics, help a tyrant, and harm a nation, in order to "save" one, or a handful, of employees from said tyrant.
Quite the opposite, the right thing to do is to take a stand and force the tyrant out in broad daylight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you think you know better what is good for the Russian people and the opposition groups than Russians and the opposition groups themselves? Because if regime's economy collapses, the regime will collapse sooner.
Regime collapse doesn't mean something better will replace it. Russia collapsed end of the 80s, but what replaced it leaves a lot to be desired...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In their defence (I say this with some trepidation), if they want to see their products in another country, then they need to play by that countries rules. Regardless of how we in the west feel about those rules. If a Chinese company came to the US or EU and ignored US or EU rules and lawful directives from government, we would quite rightly be up in arms about that. With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. Af…
> With regards to CSAM, I think the same applies. After all the CSAM issue only exists because the US government has decided that invasive monitoring is the only way to counter CSAM. No it hasn't. There is no legislation that the government passed or enforces that says Apple must scan people's private data on their devices for CSAM. Apple decided to do that all on their own.
It is important to note, that in Apple's case the problem is made worse by the fact that on iOS there are no ways to install the app bypassing the appstore. That makes Apple's cooperation with dictators and authocrats so much worse for their users. You know, the people Apple claims to care about and 'protect'.
To be pedantic, Apple does allow Progressive Web Apps which can bypass the App Store. (The Xbox cloud gaming app is a big one that goes down this path) Note that I don’t support at all this decision to cooperate with an autocrat.
In my view the PWA route is pretty crippled on iOS compared to what's available on Android - so its usefulness as an alternative is extremely limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My arguing is exactly about that! You can't name something as "elections" when ~~a huge~~ any part of country's people not just don't have a political representative at all, but gets actively counteracted to have such representative.
What is "a huge any part"? Looks like too many determiners to me, so I'm not sure what you're saying there. > don't have a political representative at all That doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you live in a place like Puerto Rico. I'm not sure if Russia has similar places, but I assume it doesn't.
Try to sign up as a candidate and best case you'll get rejected, worst case beaten, bullied, jailed or murdered.