Hacker News Reader

Comment by toastking | Hacker News Reader

I think it's more that in a device that's so locked down this is a bad precedent. Cowtowing to governments is detrimental for everyone.

View on HN

> Cowtowing to governments is detrimental for everyone.

So should Apple News allow Nazi stories in Germany? Should they allow stories disparaging the Thai king in a Thailand? Should they allow speech that creates an immediate threat to a person in the US? Should Apple pay taxes? Should Apple prohibit child porn?

All of these are examples of “kowtowing” to governments. What’s the difference between kowtowing and following the law? How can someone expect Apple to pay a “fair share” of EU taxes but then expect them to not follow Chinese law? If a company boycotts countries based on ideology, pretty soon every country gets boycotted over something or another. There are exactly zero perfect countries.

According to the TFA, Apple (or any foreign company) is not obligated to block traffic at the device-level in the manner described by TFA:

> This censorship occurs despite the fact that when in China a cell phone using a foreign SIM is not subject to the firewall restrictions (all traffic is tunneled back to your provider first), so Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al all work fine on a non-mainland China SIM even though you’re connected via China Mobile or China Unicom’s network

This is only partially correct. One has to have a foreign sim and have data roaming turned on (which implies paying the higher rate). The author didn’t state if they did both.

https://www.freedomsurfer.com/firewall/

I would like them to be principled, and apply those principles consistently, worldwide. Kowtowing is really not the right metric. Some things that governments want to impose on a company are good, and some things are bad. So:

Should they allow stories disparaging the Thai king in Thailand [or anywhere]? Yes.

Should they allow speech that creates an immediate threat to a person the the US [or anywhere]? No.

Should they pay taxes? Yes. (This isn't about principles; this is just about following local financial laws where you operate.)

Should they prohibit child porn? Yes.

Should they allow Nazi stories in Germany [or anywhere]? I'm actually not sure where I personally stand on this, but I imagine people with decision-making ability at Apple may have a strong stance on this, and they should decide for themselves.

Note that all of this is a reflection of my sense of morality and ethics. I don't expect everyone to share it; obviously my sense of right and wrong has been heavily influenced by where and how I've grown up. But I would like Apple (and all companies, really) to take a consistent, principled stance based on the values they want to display as a company. And if that closes some markets to them, then so be it.

I would think following rules set by the government is important. There are also environmental protection rules, safety rules, etc. etc. Apple says they follow all the rules (laws) in all the country they do business in. Do you really want Apple to pick and choose which they follow?

Yes, I do want them to pick and choose. Or, rather, I want them to take a principled stance and apply it worldwide, even if that means some markets are closed to them.

I believe censorship is fundamentally abhorrent, China's example of it insidiously so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com