Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

hardware.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 305 posts

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

#11

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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 to be as subversive as they can until they get kicked out. Not doing so is a choice.

And that choice has implications for the company in other countries, when they become dependent on the countries they do business in, which then start making demands of the company's behavior globally.

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

#12

Post by threeseed »

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…

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

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

#13

Post by grishka »

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…

Apple could have avoided this entire issue by not forcefully inserting itself between the app developers and their users.

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

#14

Post by infinityplus1 »

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 contributed to a company which silently supported oppressive and genocidal government's and helped make the world a worse place to live for the people".

But let's go and buy iPhones and Macs and let them know we fully support their actions.

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

#15

Post by AnthonyMouse »

threeseed wrote: post #12
mehrdadn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

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.

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

#16

Post by threeseed »

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…

In this case it is largely an issue for governments.

Because what Apple is doing is not immoral or unethical but completely standard business practice. Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them.

In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.

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

#17

Post by threeseed »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #15
threeseed wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

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.

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

#18

Post by throwawaysea »

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, and have threatened to ban others (example: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/tech-tyranny-apple-...). They’ve also engaged in the cultural wars more directly by doing things like replacing the gun emoji with the squirt gun emoji (https://blog.emojipedia.org/apple-and-the-gun-emoji/). At this rate I will be unsurprised when Apple decides to start blocking certain websites across their devices for wrongspeak.

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

#19

Post by AnthonyMouse »

threeseed wrote: post #16
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…

In this case it is largely an issue for governments. Because what Apple is doing is not immoral or unethical but completely standard business practice. Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them. In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.

> Because what Apple is doing is not immoral or unethical

Prohibiting anti-censorship apps and content-based censorship of apps at the behest of undemocratic governments is not immoral or unethical?

> Every company who runs a marketplace sets its terms and distorts competition to benefit them.

Not every company monopolizes the distribution of a third party product to an identifiable discrete set of customers.

> In this case the author et al are arguing that Apple should be regulated differently and forced to operate a "level playing field" marketplace.

That would be a valid way to remove the moral issue by taking the ability to impose censorship out of the corporation's hands.

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

#20

Post by mehrdadn »

threeseed wrote: post #12
mehrdadn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

Read the CNN report your article links to. It says the same thing I said:

> Epic's attorneys acknowledged that the company breached its agreement with Apple but claimed Epic was simply refusing to comply with an anti-competitive contract, and that forcing a legal battle was part of Epic's plan.

You might disagree about whether it should've been part of their plan (evidently their lawyers disagree, and I have yet to see either your article or yourself mention an alternative approach), but either way, everything I've seen is consistent with their intention having been to force this into court than to covertly breach the contract.

Post reply on HN