Fired App Reviewer Sues Apple
reason.com
reason.com
There was an attempt in 2012 to pass the "Global Online Freedom Act of 2012", prohibiting US companies from assisting foreign censorship operations. Didn't pass.
Apple's history of censorship is strange and amusing. They have, at various times, caved in to both China and Russia. Sending the word "Taiwan" from an iPhone with a Chinese country code at one time crashed iPHones. [2]
[1] https://fair.org/home/chinese-censorship-of-us-media-new-spi...
This would only mean that US companies would get banned from most countries shortly thereafter. I don't think US companies would like that.
"it should remain on the App Store as a matter of free speech"
Free speech is a matter for the government, not for private business decisions... If you as an employee are pushing back against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to have a bad time (i.e. risk losing the job, as it happened).
That said, I'm curious about this Guo Media, and the first thing I found when looking that up is:
https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-g...
"Free speech" is often used as a fig leaf for the alt right, so this is unfortunately unsurprising :/
I wish good luck to Trieu Pham, even if personally I wouldn't have picked Guo Media as the hill to die on
If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, does not and must not make a difference. Else, the protection of a citizen would be worthless.
The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that make it any better?
The reviewer works for Apple, and has to follow Apples rules, not make up their own. I also dislike that Apple kowtows to the CCP, but that is their choice and given the large revenues involved, I understand it. I won’t tell Apple Shareholders to leave a legal market and give up a quarter of their share value, just in order to meet my ethical standards.
You may enjoy walking around your home wearing no pants. That’s your right. But when you go to a work place, it’s your employers right to tell you to put your pants back on.
American dems are definitely less hostile than conservatives towards China so it feels natural than a wanted fugitive in China would work with conservatives.
I agree free speech doesn't apply here, given Apple it's a private company, but it definitely aligns Apple with Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatever other Big Tech company that censures whatever they don't like (applying their own policies only when they want).
It's also interesting to see who's lining up with China.
There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
How about the ACLU? Are they fascist?
Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you are located.
I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect a little more, and think a little harder on this topic.
Free speech is the font from which all other rights spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, not just the folks that pass purity tests.
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
Again, I have thought and reflected and dug. I donated to the ACLU for many years. I used to believe that they engaged in a noble cause of protecting the right of people with unpopular opinions to express their unpopular opinions. I used to believe that protecting the rights of the Nazis in Skokie protected all our rights. I now believe that it primarily protects the rights of the alt-right in Charlottesville to demonstrate and to kill, and I now believe that the ACLU's free speech advocacy, however well-intentioned, isn't good for society and leaves us all less free. And the last time they called me to ask if I'd "resume" my membership, I told them they have blood on their hands.
If the lawsuit the ACLU filed (Kessler v. Charlottesvile) hadn't happened, the fascists would still have been equally able to express their opinions. The city just wanted the rally in a different spot to reduce the risk of violence. In retrospect, the city was right, the ACLU was wrong, and Kessler got the violence he wanted.
I don't think there is any genuine danger (especially thanks to modern communications technology) to the ability of fascists to advocate for fascism, to make sure that the policy proposals of fascism remain known to the general public. What remains is a genuine danger to the ability of fascists to actually engage in fascism, which they call "exercising free speech," and they dupe organizations like the ACLU into helping them with it.
(Note I'm not claiming the ACLU is intentionally fascist. Outside of free speech advocacy, they do a lot of effective work to oppose fascism. But on this particular issue, their effect, regardless of intent, is to support fascism, and their notable work is supporting fascists who think their right of "free speech" has been violated.)
I intentionally keep my filter bubble quite broad. I read far-right forums and they love free speech. I read centrists and they think free speech is a great idea and will some day defend the. And I see far-left activists who gain nothing from the concept.
If you have an example of the font of free speech actually serving to protect any rights beyond the right to enact fascism, I'd be very curious. My position could certainly evolve further, but this is where it is now.
(BTW, it took me a long time to reply because HN blocked me with the "You're posting too fast. Please slow down." message, because I got downvoted too much in the last few minutes. If you think free speech is a virtue, please email the moderators and tell them that they should remove that feature and also stop greying out downvoted comments - downvoting for disagreement is explicitly permitted on HN, and the last thing an advocate of free speech would want is unpopular ideas to be literally unreadable! But the fact remains that HN is a better forum than e.g. 4chan because of its censorship mechanisms, and that's in fact one of the things that makes me believe free speech is not a virtue - even though I'm frequently one of the targets of that censorship because I frequently post unpopular ideas. I genuinely believe this community's ability to censor me makes it better.)
(Of course the left proper has never cared much for actual communists and anarchists either, except as linguistic props. I suppose deciding to fully embrace that shouldn't be surprising.)
I see no hope of rights-oriented politics surviving except as some side's puppet - we have reached our stop, and must get off - so which dynamic will win out?
(Though I doubt the idea that the ACLU isn't intentionally fascist will persist. "If three people sit down at the table with a Nazi, you have four Nazis sitting at the table" after all.)
Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide because, well, those folks are just making demands for their rights?
I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe that:
1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti fascist.
I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests alot, do you think protesting is bad?
In 20th century America, between approximately Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, those “people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship” tended to be the ones on the far left—socialists, communists, draft resisters—who fell victim to sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based on the exact same arguments that once justified those sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to take it up (because it is tactically useful for them).
This is entirely inaccurate, as most discussions about labeling AntiFa a 'terrorist organization' will show, and the huge investment many large companies make for preventing unionization. It is true that some people on the far left believe this, but they are entirely wrong.
In any case, your examples seem to have more to do with freedom of association than freedom of expression, which is also important but not what I was talking about.
As an example of how "extreme"-left information is kept out, have you seen even one piece of news in the US or Europe in January 2020 or since about the largest organized strike in human history? An estimated 200 million people strike in India.
The laws from 20th-century America are still on the books and are still being enforced. I have literally heard of people who, today, cannot advocate for their far-left political views because it imperils their immigration status. Here is a reminder from the USCIS as of two months ago that membership in any Communist party causes you to be ineligible to become a permanent resident: https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-issues-policy-guidan...
Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, here is someone self-censoring their left-but-nowhere-near-far-left position (a fairly mainstream position) and being attacked for their beliefs by a right-wing media outlet that, ordinarily, claims to support free speech: https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/30/wannabe-jeopardy-host-k...
That sounds pretty bad. It sounds to me like laws that attack human rights and speech are often used to hurt many people on all different sides of an issue.
And it sounds like if we want to stop those bad things that you brought up from happening, that we need to ensure that our laws do a better job of protecting free speech.
Your response to a group trying to protect certain rights that are related but not exactly the same as another set of rights, should not be you trying to fight against attempts to protect those rights.
Instead, what you should be doing is fight in favor of more protections for these rights, instead of fighting to have less protections.
More protections for humans rights are better. You should advocate for people to go even further than they are currently doing now, instead of concluding that you don't want these human rights to exist at all.
Many of them were ruled unconstitutional by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Legal conditions for immigration and naturalization are an interesting legal problem though.
Steve Bannon is strongly associated with the alt right. See https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-fiv... for a list of reasons why, including his own statements on the matter.
That said the friendship of the two seems to be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". With their common enemy being the Chinese government.
Steve Bannon opposes China because he believes in a cyclical view of history, and the next cycle, the "fourth turning", is likely to feature a war with the Middle East and/or China.
Guo Wengui opposes China because he thinks they will kill him for corruption. To be fair, you don't get as successful as he did in a corrupt environment without being corrupt yourself, so China probably has reason to kill him. But it is also a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
No, it isn't. Free speech is a moral principle, and a matter for philosophers, liberals, and all thinking people generally. The first amendment is a specific codification of the moral principle. It's the first amendment that is a matter for government.
While I agree with you that employees aren't in a good position to advocate for free speech, consumers are - and we should all be holding Apple to the standard Trieu Pham tried to hold Apple to - not because of this or that law, but because free speech is the right thing to do.
Actually, in california, your statement is not true.
Califorinia has numerous labor protections, that fall within the category of "free speech", and that prevent private businesses from retaliating against employees for certain reasons.
To give an extreme example, although it might be federally legal for a private company to interrogate and fire all democrats, it would absolutely not be legal in California.
So it is absolutely relevant to bring up california law regarding this specific case.
They had to have known this would have happened. The lack of sideloading on iOS doesn't just protect users from malware: it protects repressive governments from criticism and protects corrupt organizations with political power from reporting and attempts at organization or reform.
Furthermore, it's reprehensible for Apple to tout their commitment to human rights, but also appoint themselves the decider that you're not permitted to choose to see nudity in the apps on a device that you purchased. Only assholes decide for other competent adults what they're not allowed to watch, see, or read.
Inserting rent-seekers hellbent on surveillance into every single little purchase we engage in on a daily basis is the worst thing that's happened to our society in a very long time.
The ability to install the software we want on hardware we own should be every user's irrevocable right. Wrap it in three layers of warnings and opt-in dialogs if necessary to protect people but it needs to be possible.
Maybe you trust Apple enough to decide what software can run but are you also comfortable giving this power to whoever is in power in your government at any given time? It's an extremely dangerous precedent.
This is how the CCP takes down dissidents.
And 80 app reviews per day? Do they even have time to eat or take a dump?
Otherwise it would be very easy to first publish a "normal" app, and then just publish an update with bad stuff added.
That's not how compiled optimized binaries work, especially not with Apple platforms, ever-changing Xcode and Swift compiler versions, etc. Have you tried comparing the binaries of minor app updates? (I just tried comparing the binaries of my own app updates, where I have the source code and know what changed, but it's not pretty, and not "a few bytes".) Moreover, App Store reviewers are not the least bit qualified to even make this determination with regard to "bytes changed".
Two binaries aren't even going to have the same load address for the __TEXT __text segment, and thus a lot of stuff will be different. You think App Store reviewers have any conception of the structure of a Mach-O? Now, one might try to hand-wave and say the "automated tools" will take care of everything, but that's extremely unlikely. Diffing binaries is a skill that requires a human with extensive experience in reverse engineering. If it were totally automated, then all of the securities researchers out there would have those tools too, but they don't. There are of course tools that help a lot, but the human researcher is still essential to the process.
No, Apple doesn't get our source code. Why would you assume that?
They are making the compiler.
How hard can it be to do a proper decompiler?
They have the binary; they have the source (in some way)
If a line of assembly is:
mov eax, ebx
If Apple was demanding the debugging symbol database, that’d be something else. But they aren’t.
And even if you were right, changing some text or url would pass your test as only a few characters change, but that could make a big difference regarding the feature.
In which case they are simply checking copy, opening the app and clicking around a bit etc i.e. no more than a few minutes.
The longer reviews are reserved for new apps and edge cases.
As an App Store developer myself, I'm not sure it's true. For example, one of my 1.0 releases was "In Review" for all of 14 minutes, which is shorter than many of my minor update releases.
On the outside, we don't know how review works. It's mostly speculation. People talk about how they think it should work, but how it actually works is a different matter.
It's been awhile since I've written native iOS apps, but early on in the App Store days a developer could request an expedited review. We managed to get on this list and stay there for the entire life of the app. Even the dark days of long review times, our app never took more than 24 hours.
I just don’t understand why the PRC would have a problem with this. /s
In this case the App in question was pulled from the App Store in China. On the one hand I can understand it's the Chinese market so Chinese Government rules apply. Clearly this would not be acceptable if the App was pulled internationally. On the other hand, if the US government tried to get an App pulled when it's not clear the App violated any US law or App Store rules, Apple would fight it to the courts. That's a tricky course to take with China, but it's obviously the right thing to do.
If Chinese law says the App has to be pulled and a Chinese court says so then fine, I've no problem with Apple complying with that, the alternative would be to expect them to criminalise Apple employees in China. That's clearly not a reasonable expectation on any company. But at least it would force the Chinese authorities to account for their actions and make it clear what they are doing and why.
The problem is it's not really possible for individual companies to fight the Chinese government. Even for a company like Apple, the asymmetry in the power of the CCP relative to Apple is overwhelming. The CCP could crush Apple, and they know it. They hold enough economic power now that they could quite feasibly drive a major film studio to the wall, or slice off the whole profit margin of many US media or sports organisations.
It's time for western governments to work together on this. Congressional hearings in the US, debates at the G7 and G20. The WTO is pretty crippled at the moment and that needs to change. Whatever side of the US political fence you are and think about US imports, surely you all want to support US exports and the rights of US companies abroad right? I'm a Brit and ok we're out of the EU now, but on things like this we're all in the same boat and need to work together. We need to all support Australia in their current spat with the CCP.
We are desperately in need of a broad and international political debate about these issues. It affects all of us.
We should have a policy of reciprocity with China. This must be discussed urgently.
As a citizen of EU member, all I can say is SAD :(
US, despite certain misgivings, seems to have been a net good for the world ( not completely unlike Roman empire ). I am not certain China is, but have yet to see how it all plays out. Now, there are circles in US, that absolutely love China and the power the government wields there ( something along the lines of 'if only we could have US and China-like control, we would be all set' mindset ).
In short, I agree with you, we, as a species, should have a really hard discussion over what comes next. In a lot of ways, this is a turning point. I am not sure, we are ready to have that discussion.
Also, frankly it’s not actually his decision to make.
If someone doesn’t want to carry out company policy, they can choose to resign or expect to be fired.
This looks like someone with a political agenda who is using this situation to advance it.
But this is someone who is choosing to fight for a far right app created by a financer of Steve Bannon to remain in the store on the grounds of free speech.
How certain are you that everything in the complaint is true?
This isn't simple, it's just the only way to be compatible with Apple devices.
Guess I was lucky since It was approved a few hours after I added it.
However the bigger problem with Sign in to Apple is that they don’t follow the standard implementation of oauth/oidc as pretty much everyone else does...
The OpenID Foundation seems to disagree:
> Apple Successfully Implements OpenID Connect with Sign In with Apple
— https://openid.net/2019/09/30/apple-successfully-implements-...
> Thank You Too Apple
If not, what's their rationale for forcing you to implement theirs?
So if you want happy customers then a native app is a necessity.
PWAs can be a great experience, and they already are on android and desktop when they're well done.
I say this as someone who deleted the Facebook app and only uses web because of tracking.
So, we're not likely to see video editing software on the web surpass native any time soon.
The web is a powerful platform for a lot of reasons but I don't agree that it's easy to develop for, iOS is a much less hostile and predicatble environment to run client side code in. I also don't believe that CSS/HTML are particularly well suited to rich mobile applications in comparison to UIKit or SwiftUI. I still write PWAs and native apps and don't see why they can't coexist. Proponents of the PWA approach seem to really want PWAs to replace native development.
There is a lot of functionality and APIs that native apps have access to on both platforms, I'm not sure I see the point in browser developers implementing every single one of them when a subset can cover 70% of JSON-viewer type app needs, the remaining niche can be written as native apps.
I've had numerous app rejections because of reviewers simply incapable of reading instructions, and it's immensely frustrating. Especially when important hotfixes etc. is put on hold for days for no reason whatsoever.
Instruction: Do NOT tap button X to log in, instead use method Z.
Rejection: Tapped button X, could not log in. Your app is broken.
Welp, time to resubmit and wait for a couple of days to possibly get the same rejection again.
EDIT: To clarify, the login procedure is different and simplified for test accounts, such as the ones reviewers are using. Real users need to identify with real ID for (valid) reasons.
They will have the same hurdle. And resubmit again and again and possibly; again. That is why many developers are so frustrated. It isn't some one -off problems. It has been going on for years.
Just like the Butterfly Keyboard, it wasn't until a journalist wrote about it and mainstream media pick it up causing Apple PR damage before Apple acted on it. Just the same with App Store review. This time with DHH.
But the uncalled-for rejections happens enough that we can never feel confident. As I say, it's a major nuisance, but it isn't unworkable.
I am currently in this situation.
Alternatively, why understand sarcasm when the lack of understanding provides some folks with an amazing weapon?
On the flip side I've heard my fair share of horror stories from expats that get locked out of necessary services only because they don't have a social security number and bank account (yet). And that process can take a while.
On the other hand it means that it's impossible to determine which user is logging in until the proper auth is complete. And thus you cannot have "special accounts" using this flow.
Those days are over. Want to access text messages because you have 2 factor logins? Want to access phone logs because your apps measures how much time you spent on the phone with each of your clients?:
Be prepared for a lot of bureaucracy.
Of course you can't even access texts or calls on an iOS device, but then again when that's the case none of your customers can ever force you to build a feature around it.
After a few years it had attracted a few thousand users but needed updating and the developer was non-responsive. The family member of mine was non-technical and had allowed the developer to publish the app under their own developer account.
A saga begins that I won't bore everyone with the details but basically this family member didn't want to lose the thousands of users. They tried to get the developer to send them the app to maintain but the developer was non responsive. They tried to enforce their trademark on the app but Google would only delist it.
Now they had no listing at all for their company so they tried to start over. They tried to create a new app with the same name but Google's review process wouldn't let them because another app had already existed with that name. Armed with a trademark and people we knew who worked at Google we got exactly zero steps further after three months of trying to work with Google on the issue.
Eventually, we tracked down the mother of the developer who had ghosted on us and paid them to give us their developer account. Where we showed the trademark, had the app re-activated, and moved it to another Google account we controlled.
Basically, Google couldn't help us at all. It was a mess. Eventually we got things sorted but we had to go around Google.
Was this Google's fault? Heck no. The family member got unprofessional help from a student developer who ghosted on them but Google didn't make it easy to fix the issue. They made it impossible.
That being said, Apple is also known for being incredibly draconian when it comes to account management. I don't think you would have been in a better position on iOS.
I think understaffed, off-shored and with a lack of permissions is just the baseline when it comes to this sort of tech support.
How is this a problem?
How is that not a problem? Yes, parties Foo and Bar probably used the wrong procedure when releasing the app, but can't fix that.
Google has no exception handling ability, and it's awful. You can't merge G suite organizations when there's a corporate merger. Clearly, you should have known five years ago, that you were going to be purchased by X. Same story, no exception handling.
I recently had a problem with Dell/VMWare when we wanted to change the domain name associated with a VxRail cluster. After working with their support teams for months, they eventually threw up their arms and said; "It cannot be done unless you reset and do a fresh install."
And without a maintenance agreement the developer isn’t going to help you, they have their own life to live. You think they are going to take vacation days from their next job to figure out that old code? As usual the problem is the client.
Full disclosure: I write this as a contract developer who had to take over an active app on the store when the client fired the previous developers, and tried to update it themselves. I have to update 140,000 lines of code with zero comments or documentation, and the previous devs aren’t accessible. In my case the clients screwed themselves, but got lucky cause I’m very very good.
With Apple, you may have to convince them of your opinion, but you can very quickly talk to a human who will reply with an actual, thoughtful response.
With Google, if you manage to get a human on the other side of the line, you’re probably weeks or months later, several automated forms and replies deep, and completely confused.
I like that apple only allows apps of a certain quality. But some guidelines are multi-interpretable.. Causing issues when submitting app updates.
However I appreciate it’s a big process and given the amount of complaints online on how bad the process is, I put a lot of extra care to make sure everything goes through very smoothly. I use TestFlight a lot to test a lot and I look at the App Store process as akin to sending my software to a publisher and writing to CDs - I go to full efforts to make sure it is as perfect as possible by the point I’m submitting.
Also might have to do with number of users you have. Now I have quite a few downloads on my main app, so I may be getting a bit better treatment on priority fixes.
This complaint makes me feel like it's as simple as that. Apple just fears China.
HN readers might be surprised at the extent of modded-iOS-app communities (just like APK communities for Androids) that manage to exist within the meager 7-day signing window Apple allows a free-tier developer account. Tools like AltStore and ReProvision are the standard for sideloading and renewing (respectively) legitimate jailbreak-entrypoint apps:
https://github.com/rileytestut/AltStore
https://github.com/Matchstic/ReProvision
Even for un-jailbroken devices there are entire alternative ecosystems based around sideloading modded/pirated apps. They are obviously full of pirated stuff, usually work by abusing an enterprise cert from an endless list of Chinese companies (not insinuating anything bad, just firsthand experience), and they probably have some nasty malware mixed in here and there as well. Zero endorsement for any of these examples from the first page of a DDG search, but you get the idea:
https://sideload.tweakboxapp.com/
https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/04/spotify-up-tweakbox-users-...
This lawsuit.
> Preventing side-loading improves iOS device security
Yes, this is true. Welding the doors to your house shut also improve security. But it does so at the expense of usability. There is a reasonable trade off between usability and security and Apple makes an unreasonable choice.
You think that's the reason, since 2007 (and every year after) when Apple also didn't allow sideloading apps? It seems a little fanciful, at best.
Apple’s lack of side loading not only protect the users from malware, but it could also serve as the perfect weapon for the US government to make it near impossible for a company/nation to compete in the mobile app sector. That’s likely why 40%-Tencent owned Epic engaged in a desperate PR lawsuit to try to make it possible to side-load apps.
Well, no, it's quite different.
A border can be controlled, information cannot. East Germany could stop people crossing the border to West Germany (at least, those who weren't willing to take the risk of being shot at). They couldn't stop West German radio stations being broadcast back across the border.
Information control isn't anything like border control, because information is permeable to your physical border. You can shoot-to-kill people crossing your borders, but good luck doing that with electromagnetic radiation.
At best you can jam it or attempt to control the flow domestically (by, for example, banning radios), but in both cases it's easily circumvented.
He was fired for ignoring his supervisors to promote a far right app developed by a financer of Steve Bannon.
> Guo Media App does not contain violent content or incite violence;
...
Hilarious recent drama among antiCCP Chinese diaspora in west:
Surrey assault victim: “They attack the real anti-CCP, actual pro-democratic activists”
>The protesters are part of the New Federal State of China campaign created by Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui, who are also involved in the media startups GNews and GTV. Associates have staged protests against critics in other cities around North America. Gao has been critical of Guo, who is wanted for corruption in China.
https://thebreaker.news/news/surrey-protest-victim-talks/
...
Granted CCP hates Guo. Like a lot. But I think this is mostly western politics due to Bannon association. If Apple was really sucking Chinese dick, Epoch Times would not be #2 app in magazines and newspapers.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epoch-times-live-breaking/id67...
E: is this about pulling from Chinese app stores? That's even less of a non story. Peak American exceptionalism thinking Apple should decide whether Chinese dissidents get media platforms in China or not. Not.
Get out of here with this pro-authoritian crazy talk.
Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade between peoples but governments. CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly not western propaganda. No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to. And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally. That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough.
If that were true, rational people would be anarchists.
The argument is interesting. You may be right about non-western markets. I am not an expert so I won't address it.
"Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade between peoples but governments"
And not both? It is possible that I am misunderstanding the statements. Could you elaborate?
"CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly not western propaganda."
We all want things. But NBA, films, and values ARE all part of western propaganda. CCP may think it is cutting all the dangerous thoughts from the movie, but all it does is creating a streisand effects resulting in bans on number 8 and winnie the pooh. On the flip side, why does US have to comply with Chinese propaganda efforts?
"No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship laws that domestic companies must adhere to."
I genuinely do not understand the comparison. Could you provide a different example?
"And the have the audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to operate there legally."
Well, both statements are true are they not? They are banned, because they do not adhere to local laws. Stuff in Turkey is banned too and they are called out on it. It is not audacity to say water is wet.
"That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. "
I am stealing "peak exceptionalism' phrase. I agree with the sentiment, but it is not realistic based just one the comments you made at the very beginning ( "Multinational companies conforming to local laws and customs is status quo.").
International trade across border is fundamentally state to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly engage with US company #2 when they make a commercial exchange. Geographic border is quite literally a physical barrier where transaction friction is reduced with instruments like trade deals. It's always mediated by laws from both parties (import/export controls) and sometimes a superbody (multilateral organizations). Smuggling wouldn't be a concept if relationship is between people to people.
> ARE western propaganda
Everything is political, but some politics are more acceptable than others. Censorship in media has gotten pretty overwhelming in PRC last few years, but "cutting all the dangerous thoughts" is gross hyperbole. Marvel blockbusters do fine in both China and US with minimal editing. Ditto with NBA before HK drama. Most western brands for that matter. There's overlap of shared taste in commercial goods and popular media, same can't be said on actual political news / propaganda like this instance. Especially this instance, if people knew what Guo is to CCP. Cracking down on speech and foreign influence is matter of priority and perspective.
> different example
Hard to think of one right now. Point is no one attaches values to trade of commodity items. No one insists McDonald's must sell pork/beef burgers in Islamic countries or India because of values, but when it comes to censorship and China/Vietnam, it's unreasonable for US social media platforms to follow local requirements. We're not even touching on a future where foreign companies actively endorse Chinese propaganda to cater to Chinese identity politics, instead of current reluctant endorsement due to legal compliance.
> why does US have to comply
No one has to comply, just don't expect market access, nor whine previous access is lost.
> banned
Dodgy Chinese brands vehicles aren't in US because they're banned but because they don't meet safety requirements. There are entire sectors of economy where foreign companies are actually banned i.e. some financial services. Implying western tech are banned is simply false, see Bing. But it's the basis of lots of grievance politics in tech, i.e. endorsing tiktok ban as reciprocal when tiktok follows all US laws. Same is not true vice versa.
> not realistic
Apple / Bing continues to operate fine in Chinese market. FB / Google were working on Chinese compliant services a few years ago. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. If you mean multinationals being beholden to multiple jurisdictions including home countries which supersedes everyone else, then yeah that's a finicky problem especially in tech when data can be weaponized. But that's a very broad matter of strategic policy decisions.
You really think letting liars speak is worse than forbidding anybody except the ministry of truth from speaking?
The immediate consequence of this stance, if you take it literally, is that you think distributing child pornography should be legal.
Either you think that, or you actually do think it's OK for governments to limit some information.