Hacker News Reader

Comment by SpicyLemonZest | Hacker News Reader

Apple absolutely shouldn't meddle in Belarus's politics. But if Belarusian users are using their platform to incite violence, as Apple says they are, don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?

View on HN

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.

I'm pretty sure that the most people are able to navigate to web.telegram.org and create a bookmark in their browser of choice. Overall it's an even simpler set of steps than any app store can provide you with, and you don't need to regularly download new updates for it.

And Apple continues to cripple progressive web apps in iOS (example: push notifications), unfortunately making this idea not as useful as on Android.

In some instances, like standing up to a violent, oppressive, and dictatorial regime violence is generally considered an acceptable form of political action.

Even if that's true - and I'm not going to get into that debate here - surely that doesn't mean that every company has to allow their products to become tools of mass violence.

The trick is that Apple is essentially a utility company and replacing it is a significant expense to the user. And it needs to be aware of it's power and act accordingly. Maybe a "device neutrality" law should be in order.

To throw a dumb example your electricity company is not policing you for how you are using your killowats.

Electrical utilities in many areas did routinely report excessive usage to law enforcement for investigation of suspected indoor marijuana farms.

I'd like to see such a law, but I'm not sure this particular situation can be solved that way. The Belarusian government would presumably just pass a non-neutrality law, and then we're in the same place as before where Apple has to decide based on moral and practical considerations.

Violence may be seen as legitimate, but it shouldn’t be seen as effective. In a study of over 300 movements, non violent protests are twice as effective. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file...

Non-violence is only effective where the oppressor is vulnerable to moral pressure. In many cases, the oppressor is not.

(Not stating my personal examples, too contentious, but I'm sure you could find your own).

If you had a study showing that in over 300 carpentry projects hammers were used twice as often as screwdrivers, would that convince you to hammer in a screw?

My point is that violence may not be a good fit for every situation, but that doesn't mean it never is. Gandhi was an effective non-violent protester, against the British in Africa when backed by large numbers. How effective would Gandhi have been protesting against the Nazis?

I don't know anything about Belarus, so I don't know anything about what is or isn't justified, it just seems wrong to me to suggest that violence is categorically less effective. Political violence is a tool and like any other has moments where it should and shouldn't be used.

As far as I can tell, though, unmasking isn't really coded as violent in the sense that the writer suggests.

Huh? Tell that to Ukrainian at first peaceful protestors. Which then turned into mildly violent, then hard violent (from the govt side largely) in the end, including what Ukraine now calls the 100 in Heaven ?

How ineffective was that protest?

Non-violent protests didn't work too well against the Nazis. There are exceptions to every rule.

Would nonviolent protest against Hitler have been twice as effective as the war?

> allow their products to become tools

This is precisely why lack of choice in app stores is so harmful. The phones belong to the people. Without the app store, the manufacturer has no grounds to allow or disallow behavior.

> .. don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?

Is Apple a law enforcing agency with jurisdiction in that region? If the answer to that is no, then the answer to your (rhetorical) question is equally no.

Even more, Apple might very well be the one legally at fault here, for assuming authoritative powers for which it has absolutely no legal mandate or justification.

So, if anything, it is rather Apple that is likely the one braking the law here, despite all the rhetoric about Apple having some kind of moral duty (absolute hogwash).

It isn't so much about meddling, but more about Apple assuming powers it should never have in the first place (legally speaking).

If there are violence, it is a civil war. Does apple like to meddle their hand in blood? Especially they are standing for the dictatorship, which does not put Apple in a good position even if they are going to get into the issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com