581–590 of 634 posts
Here is a source in Russian [0] saying that Apple is asking Telegram to remove messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members, rather than blocking channels outright. I don't know whether their source is reliable, but here is the relevant snippet (google translate): > Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure a bit of murdering will totally cool things down and peacefully resolve things, with no innocent deaths or casualties. As we all know, vigilantes never make mistakes.
Doesn't this go right back to thinking things through before attacking people people? Right or wrong, when people are abused repeatedly, and or they cease to believe in governance, they will act out and it won't all be nice. The root cause here is an authoritarian regime failing to justify their authority. People acting out is a symptom.
Yes, but the discussion here is about whether Apple should facilitate or hinder particular kinds of act by people.
That's not a symptom for Apple, that's a dilemma for Apple, and there is no truly neutral option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Griefing? Belarus is on the brink of civil war. Doxxing regime supporters can easily end up as a "murder todo list" if things heat up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing
> Doxxing regime supporters can easily end up as a "murder todo list" if things heat up. Do you give an innuendo that this is somehow wrong?
- Killing a "regime supporter", meaning someone targeted only because of their political beliefs. It is not right that political beliefs should be punished like that. Ideally they shouldn't be punished at all, they should be tolerated but simply lose an election.
You can't claim to "protest for democracy" while being happy to facilitate murdering people who vote for the other side! That would be mad hypocrisy.
- Killing a police officer whose crime, even if violent, fell significantly short of killing someone themselves. Punishment should fit the crime, not be 10x worse.
You can't claim to "protest for justice" while being happy to facilitate extra-judicial killings that aren't even based in justice.
- Killing an innocent person who is mis-identified, whether by accident or not so much.
See above.
The third point, killing an innocent person seems even more likely due to automated facial recognition software like what's running on Facebook, with its biases and a mask to add more noise too, integrated with deepfake image reconstruction technology to produce convincing "unmasked" images, combined with vigilantes often not being too bothered about accuracy and statistics.
However wrong or right you think it is, surely everyone agrees it's wrong if it ends up getting the wrong people.
But no apparently. I've spoken with people in other situations (at other times) who said, basically, it's ok for "a few innocents" to die if that's what it takes to rid the world of guilty people. And others taking the view that it's ok for "police" to die because police are bad. Both views strike me as boneheaded AF.
It is clear AF from the reports that the Belarus authorities think it's ok for some number of innocents to die and suffer for the sake of policing and intimidation. If I were there I would certainly want the authority to "die", by being thoroughly dismantled asap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there is anything about impeding political protesters in the Apple EULA. Even if there were something, certain things are typically protected in law; in most western countries, for example, a landlord cannot forbid a shop from serving members of a specific religion or of a specific ethnicity.
I am not saying anything about political protesters, only commenting on the example you used (landlord one) to say it's not applicable in this case. > Even if there were something, certain things are typically protected in law; in most western countries, for example, a landlord cannot forbid a shop from serving members of a specific religion or of a specific ethnicity Of course, but the landlord can forbid a shop fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're using Telegram. Not Apple's platform. If Telegram was a Windows, or even a web app, should Microsoft be threatening to block Windows users from being able to access the app or even website?
I think this is probably the best argument against platforms with locked app stores- civil liberties. The only reason that Belarus can ask Apple to ask (force) Telegram to do this, is because there is no reasonable alternative for most people to get an application onto their phone. If I could easily install other app stores onto my phone, then government requests like this would not be effective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels like a false equivalency, because what I'm talking about is the right to be forgotten. Which is only a fallacy because data is a commodity, not because it's technically impossible. And yes you can't really be forgotten, copies can always exist but it shouldn't be hosted readily if you don't want it to be. Unless I'm missing something?
How would you propose to enforce that goal?
It's not always possible to make people do the right thing. But when it's not possible, it doesn't cease to be the right thing to demand, continuously, hoping to use the power of pressure or persuasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a channel for white supremacists to coordinate terror attacks existing isn't good , per se, but it should still be possible for them by default and the government should have to demonstrate that it can responsibly handle the power to police it before we let it do so. So at the current state of the world, I wouldn't object to Apple doing this, but I'm still in favor of white supremacists being able to do this,…
A state is most of the time a tool for a majority to oppress a minority. Laws and police are just their tools, and so are dictators. Whoever is labeled a dictator is just a figurehead supported by majority of elites, who in turn are supported by economically strong coalition, represented by some majority of people who are united. Precisely, there is no difference between oppressing white supremacist minority and any…
I don't agree that that characterisation of a state is true.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it misses out some essential features which are directly relevant to that description, for some states anyway.
One of those is: Some states (maybe the USA?) believe in more than just acting out the wishes of the majority at any given time.
Some of them believe in ideals, which outlive an ephemeral majority. Things like "rule of law" (which doesn't mean clobbering minorities, it means the government is held to account rather than acting like a rogue king), "human rights" (in theory, things like the Magna Carta), "justice" (as defined by a long history of institutions and systems whose learned principles are studied by people that practice in it).
You can certainly argue that sort of thing still comes down to some level of majority oppressing a minority. But I think the character of that ruling is very different in ways that matter, if it demonstrates a decent attempt at those attributes and builds them into stable institutions, than if it doesn't bother or just pays lip service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't this go right back to thinking things through before attacking people people? Right or wrong, when people are abused repeatedly, and or they cease to believe in governance, they will act out and it won't all be nice. The root cause here is an authoritarian regime failing to justify their authority. People acting out is a symptom.
> People acting out is a symptom. Yes, but the discussion here is about whether Apple should facilitate or hinder particular kinds of act by people. That's not a symptom for Apple, that's a dilemma for Apple, and there is no truly neutral option.
Regarding apple...