Hacker News Reader

Comment by rzwitserloot | Hacker News Reader

This keeps being posted and keeps disappearing, so I'm going to not link to it, but when you search around, a post on telegram by Pavel Durov explains that apple has in fact made 2 demands: Take down the private information __and__ in addition to that, do so silently: Do not replace it with a notice explaining which part of apple's guidelines were breached, because that would be 'irrelevant' info.

Apparently, whilst the quandary is real, apple is either living on a different planet than I am, or doesn't care, and decided to pepper in something that the vast majority (I would assume) find distasteful 1984 stuff.

View on HN

Here's Durov's response:

```

Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."

This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.

By hiding their demands with vague language, Apple is trying to avoid the responsibility of enforcing their own rules. It is understandable: according to this poll, over 94% of Belarusian users think the channels that made Apple worry should be left alone.

Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.

Similarly, when Facebook wanted to inform its users that 30% of the fees users were paying for online events went to Apple, Apple didn’t let Facebook do it saying this information was (once more) “irrelevant”.

I strongly disagree with Apple’s definition of “irrelevant”. I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant.

Apple has the right to be greedy and formalistic (or maybe not – that’s something for the courts and regulators to decide). But it’s time Apple learned to assume responsibility for their policy instead of trying to hide it from users – they deserve to know.

```

https://t.me/s/durov/136

I take no issue with wanting to remove content that doxxes people, even if those people are doing bad things. I do, however, take issue with Apple pushing this idea that they can decide what information you can and cannot give users. Barring people from saying "Hey, we didn't delete this because we wanted to, Apple asked us to" is a bit suspect as it leads to people associating the act with the app by default. It takes away agency from companies while giving Apple free reign to rule without being blamed for any mistakes.

Even more, Apple has assigned itself powers that in most (sane) countries are a strict monopoly of governments (and preferably only after going through a legal system/process and strictly regulated).

Especially Apple's attempt/request/demand to remove things silently goes way beyond what any company (or citizen) should ever be allowed to do to speech of others. Whether this doxxing is justified or not, that's up to courts and certainly not Apple. Censorship (while debatable if it ever should be allowed in some cases or never) should always be a monopoly of a state (which should be legally accountable) and never commercial entities.

I'm honestly a bit surprised, that so far I hear few governments protest, about how a commercial company basically usurped powers that are supposed to be limited to governments only. Such powers belong only there not just by habit or by convention, but also because this an important aspect of the legal order in any state of law. That is, at least for any country that has signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As appalling as Apple's behavior might be (and I certainly hope they will pay dearly for it), it's not particularly surprising (anymore). But the silence of governments on this behavior, that should worry more people a lot more.

By telling Apple they can’t control others’ speech on their platform, you are in effect controlling Apple’s speech, forcing them to host or be associated with material they don’t want.

> By telling Apple they can’t control others’ speech on their platform, you are in effect controlling Apple’s speech

Since when is control, or censorship, of what someone else says speech in it's own right? If Apple wanted a disclaimer next to a message, or something along those lines, you might still remotely have somewhat of a point.

Following your contrived line of "reasoning", any TV producer should have a right to decide what viewers can (and can not) watch on their hardware.

Last time I checked, companies that make product for a consumer market explicitly do NOT have a right to decide what consumers can do with it.

Somehow, software producers already got way more leeway with that than the probably ever should have in the first place (in accordance with the law). But to argue that they should because it's about the free speech of companies, is absolutely bunkers.

I'm aware that the USA made the rather mind boggling decision that companies are people to them (though arguably only so politics could be even more corrupted with corporate money), giving rise to the lunacy of a company having something as free speech. But even accepting that as a (dismal) fact of reality (in the USA), controlling the speech of others just isn't speech itself. More importantly, such control is explicitly forbidden by law (even as per the UDHR).

it's pretty convenient if you can just force another company to take the PR hit for your unpopular decision, because you own the microphone

> This keeps being posted and keeps disappearing

Fwiw, t.me is banned on HN because the vast majority of submissions don't show anything unless you install their app. It seems some posts are also display actual content, but they're rare, and it would require writing some special-case code to whitelist them.

Telegram is small enough for Apple to bully. Imagine if Apple tried to force Twitter to censor every "cancel crusade" or be removed from the App Store.

Telegram has more monthly active users than Twitter (400 million vs 360 million, according to Statista)

Even going by metrics like cultural significance, there are large regional differences. It's a little unfair to call them smaller, even if they don't quite have the same level of political and social clout in the US.

User numbers don't matter if you're not making money off them. Telegram is privately funded by Pavel Durov. Twitter's yearly revenue is equal to Durov's entire net work. Twitter's market cap is 250 times higher than Telegram's.

> Twitter's yearly revenue is equal to Durov's entire net work. Twitter's market cap is 250 times higher than Telegram's.

Contrary to your goal you actually made Durov sound much more impressive.

Durov's an extremely impressive individual. It doesn't change the fact that kicking Twitter off the app store could put a dent in Apple's iPhone sales and would almost certainly generate a lot of negative Western press. Telegram getting the boot wouldn't.

It would destroy sales in large parts of the world where it's the default messaging app, similar to how kicking off WhatsApp would in other parts of the world.

Exactly? Why does Apple get to moderate Telegram's users?

If you let a communication app onto your platform, you are letting people use that to communicate. It is not up to apple to moderate telegram. It is up to telegram.

If apple wanted to, they could argue "Telegram is so badly moderated we want them off our platform". But that is very different from saying "If you do not take these specific moderation actions, we will kick you off our platform". Unless telegram was already on very thin ice with Apple, this is a massive over-reach by Apple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com