Google, Apple cave to Pakistan pressure to take down apps by Ahmadiyya Muslims | Hacker News Reader

Google, Apple cave to Pakistan pressure to take down apps by Ahmadiyya Muslims

buzzfeednews.com

428 pointsshalmanese481 comments

For those defending this practice, consider carefully the implications of what you are advocating.

On one hand you have a government deciding who can and cannot refer to themselves as adherents of a particular religion (by declaring that Ahamadis cannot call themselves Muslim).

On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being the complicit chokepoints of “free speech”, with regard to app developers.

These may seem fair to you, but that may be because these practices have not negatively affected you...yet.

But consider: Would it be fair if England declared Catholics “unChristian” and banned their use if the term? Or what if the USA declared hasidic jews “Unjewish” and banned their use of the term. Or what if Apple caved to pressure theoretical from Israel to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses from using the term “Jehovah”?

What next? Government declaring who is and is not “white”?

Oh wait......

If we got to that situation, that would be the result of far greater problems than having or not having a particular app.

"These may seem fair to you"

I don't see 'seeming fair' to most people.

This is just yet another example of Google and Apple's monopoly preferences being leveraged by entities that have more leverage than them.

It has to stop.

Free The Apps.

The PTA isn't stopping at walled-garden App Stores; Google and Apple are just one of the few countries large enough to have a physical presence Pakistan can threaten. They also threatened a handful of US-based web hosts who are basically prohibited from seeing their families until they censor this sect.

(And yes, I'm using the word 'censor' here. It is entirely appropriate under even the narrowest definitions of the word, as the decision to remove content was made with the force of law. The US has similar provisions known as the 'state actors doctrine'.)

It took me a second to get this argument, but it’s a good one. If there were thousands of marketplaces on iOS and Android, then Pakistan would have to negotiate the removal on all of this platforms, as opposed to only two.

Spelling it out clearly like that, it makes me wonder if there are many governments that prefer to have monopolies to deal with, rather than many companies. It certainly makes regulation simpler.

You can look at how many governments have managed to keep websites they don't like down. Thepiratebay and tons of other illegal sites are still available today in most places of the world even where they are illegal.

If we didn't have the free open web and instead just had appstore like gatekeepers none of those sites would be allowed to exist.

I personally worked for a large tech company and was involved with 'content filtering discussions' with questionable regimes.

HN doesn't like such arguments, it's not an argument, just an experience.

It's common.

Pragmatically speaking, it's much harder for Pakistan to filter the entire web, than control international conglomerates which they generally can do.

We need diversity in search, and absolutely need to have 'many app stores' and 'direct downloads'.

The arguments for 'security' are rubbish, and the plebes supporting Apple's monopoly I don't think understand what's happening.

In US anti-trust cases, generally there has be evidence of 'harm to consumers' - well - these 'bans' absolutely represent harm. Bans of Apps (even unsavoury things like Parler) and unquestionably arbitrary controls on choice that harm consumers. Moreover, Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation.

So Apple should be more like Google - and - just as the EU has proposed with search wherein you get to choose your vendor, not defaults negotiated behind the scenes - the same goes with app stores.

Once the regulatory action is taken - we will still have secure apps, and there will be greater opportunity. In hindsight it will seem obvious and actually kind of simple.

> Apple's 30% cut is a pretty obvious harm once you do the economic calculation.

Not really. You have to compare it to a counter-factual, and those are generally made up to support whatever position you already hold.

Also, it’s not 30%. It’s 15% for almost all developers.

Evidence of Apple's monopoly are actually baked right into that rate. They are price-setters, not subject to the whims of the market, and adjust their prices given non-market forces (press, threat of regulation etc.)

It's a high enough number that it absolutely changes outcomes, meaning at minimum less choice for consumers and higher cost, and implicitly, a whole host of lost opportunity.

In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit.

As a small operation, in the corner of the economy, it doesn't matter, but this is unfolding like the Edison/Tesla/Westinghouse battles of the last century and we know how that ended up.

> In particular, there are tons of Enterprise apps that can't feasibly operate on Apple due to issues concerning Apple wanting to take the entirety of their profit.

False. Apple doesn’t take a percentage from enterprise distribution.

Also, you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point. The 15% on its own is indicative of nothing.

???

Apple absolutely takes 30% of Enterprise services, depending on how they are paid for, and as they gain more power, they will absolutely lever that power into other sectors.

"Apple is demanding 30% commission from Airbnb and ClassPass. That's because the pair have shifted to selling virtual, online classes during the pandemic. It has threatened to remove Airbnb from the App Store if it doesn't comply." [1]

How risky is it now to create a startup, used by anyone in a situation of 'individual buyers' that involves any kind of service?

Apple is threatening to take 30% of most of the US services economy.

If it 'happens on an iPhone' - they want 30%.

For small companies, it's 15% - but the difference is irrelevant because they are 'price setters' in a monopoly setting, and those prices cause consumer harm.

You cannot currently upgrade Spotify or Netflix using an iPhone - that is a fairly radically obvious example of Apple stupidity/consumer harm.

And finally the 15%/30% charge are material because they drive that consumer harm - were there no such charge, you'd be able to a range of other services.

" you didn’t provide a counterfactual, which is exactly my point." - yes, I did. A 30/15% tax causes material harm. The 15% is evidence of price setting. You can download apps for 0% all over the Android universe.

[1] https://www.imore.com/apple-threatens-remove-airbnb-app-stor...

> Apple absolutely takes 15/30% of Enterprise services, depending on how they are paid for.

This is complete bullshit. They charge 15/30% for delivery of digital content through their actual platform.

Paying for services is done through Apple Pay, which has fees in line with any other credit card processor.

Yes, it’s true that there are some fucked up cases where Apple is classing certain digital content in a way that seems to violate this. Yes, we should be pressuring them to be sane about that.

But let’s not spread bullshit like ‘Apple charges 30% for “Enterprise Services”’ in some general way. That’s just misleading, and false.

The fundamental issue with the argument you're presenting is that Pakistan is not a secular country, unlike England or the USA. An example of a country that bases their government on a particular religion allowing citizens to freely declare whether they're adherents of that religion even if their practice differs significantly compared to established orthodoxy would significantly strengthen this assertion.

> Pakistan is not a secular country, unlike England or the USA

It's a minor quibble, but England does have an established national Church, so it's not entirely secular in the way the US is. 26 CofE Bishops sit in the House of Lords, the Lords Spiritual. The head of state is also the head of the Church.

It is so fascinating how fascinated all these Germanic kingdoms in Western Europe were with emulating the Romans

Until Henry VIII's divorce of Catherine of Aragon, England had the same church as Rome.

Why? Rome was vastly richer and more powerful than they were, and the only model of success they ever knew.

Yet England feel way more secular than USA in practice, given how much Christianity seems to matter in US politics.

The highly religious nature of US settlers is directly connected to our secular freedoms. A lot of early settlers were pretty extreme practicers of their religions and faced persecution in Europe. They left to practice their religion in a place where they wouldn't be burned as a heretic. It's interesting that these opposing extremists were able to get along separately by agreeing to keep the government secular

It's an interesting piece of American history worth drilling down on.

The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom originated from one of the Southern colonies, which tended towards more English mainstream religion (Jefferson himself was raised in the Church of England, but considered himself a Deist). It served as a sort of "non-aggression pact" between the religions, since the various sects of the Northern colonies had quite a bit of political power by virtue of concentration of their adherents and isolation from traditional European religious power.

Yes, and that’s related to the formation of the Church of England too. The religious settlements in the reign of Elizabeth I and others aimed to bring Catholic-leaning and Protestant-leaning believers together in one broad church, but it couldn’t accommodate every sect, so some were excluded from the national church, persecuted, and eventually left. You can still see the division today in high and low Anglican churches.

> They left to practice their religion in a place where they wouldn't be burned as a heretic.

Not true, at least in the obvious case of the Pilgrims of Plymouth. They were perfectly free to practice their religion when they lived in the Netherlands. They moved away because they wanted to create their own strict theocratic colony. The Netherlands, in their eyes, had too much religious freedom.

Even that specific example is a bit of a gray area imo. They were persecuted in England and tried to live in the Netherlands but found life hard to adjust and were also wanting to keep their English identity. So, it is more of persecution by the Church of England that pushed them away.

The Netherlands do get a point here for tolerance imo.

There is a lot of debate over why they moved. e.g.

-running out of room -economics -impending war -wanting to venture into the unknown

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/91317/holland-first...

Is it ok to sell weapons of war to a country engaging in ethnic cleansing, and if not - why not?

After all, the country is allowed to decide it's own rules and laws. If it decides ethnic cleansing is allowable, we should follow that right?

Of course not! Just because a country decides some action is legal doesn't make it moral or ethical - and knowingly aiding an unethical act is itself unethical! We do and should absolutely shun and punish countries engaging in things like ethnic cleansing - even if they're assisting a country that has deemed it legal.

Why in the world would religious prosecution be some kind of special case?

Well it isn’t murdering people. So it’s not quite equivalent.

Being secular doesn't preclude governments from engaging in nearly equivalent behavior with regard to other issues.

Given that the UK is quite literally a theocracy i wouldnt say there is much of a diference there...

> Would it be fair if England declared Catholics "unChristian" and banned their use if the term?

I think it's slightly more nuanced than that. For example, England should be able to declare whether a given group of people are members of the Church of England (organization). Wherever a centralized authority exists, that authority should have the power to declare whether or not someone is a member of the organization. The Catholic church should absolutely be able to declare some rogue sect that claims to be Catholic "unCatholic".

However, you are absolutely right, where no centralized authority exists no one should be able to classify others' high level beliefs. Whether someone is Jewish, Christian, Islam, Atheist, etc. is not up to anyone but the individual adherent. If you believe in Jesus Christ and believe you are following his teachings, you are a Christian and no government or conglomerate of sects should be able to say otherwise. If you believe in Mohammed and the tenets of Islam, no government or conglomerate of sects should be able to say you are not a Muslim.

Not everyone agrees with any given central authority. In religion especially this is often over relatively complex reasons that outsiders probably aren't in a position to try and navigate. You need only to refer to religious history and it's many wars to see this: the tri-part nature of Christ, the exact date of Easter, the shaving of heads in early English history, etc.

Nor should we start allowing the Church of England to press Google into service putting it's agenda forward. We recognize that dissent is an important part of free speech!

> England should be able to declare whether a given group of people are members of the Church of England (organization). Wherever a centralized authority exists, that authority should have the power to declare whether or not someone is a member of the organization. The Catholic church should absolutely be able to declare some rogue sect that claims to be Catholic "unCatholic".

They should have the power to declare whether or not they consider someone to be a member of an organization. Nothing more. This goes beyond simply declaring whether or not they consider Ahmadis to be Muslims. The Pakistani government is using "anti-blasphemy" laws to silence anyone who objects to their declaration.

Ironically, the British government once claimed to dictate to non Anglicans that they couldn't hold the same names of bishoprics as CofE bishops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829

Hence why the RC primate of England is the Archbishop of Westminster, not a dual RC Archbishop of Canterbury.

I wouldn’t say that I’m defending the practice. It’s a bad decision and I wish Pakistan wouldn’t censor these apps.

But it really does seem like the responsibility lies with Pakistan here. The article suggests Google’s trying hard to keep these apps up, and has indeed kept some up despite government pressure. At the end of the day, their options to resist legal demands are limited, and it’s hard for me to see an argument that this relatively small instance of censorship is so important they should shut down operations in Pakistan over it.

> At the end of the day, their options to resist legal demands are limited

They're really not. Google is not based in Pakistan, and they don't have offices or datacenters in Pakistan.

Why should they take _global_ action against developers who are _located in the US_ on the request of someone who does not have jurisdiction over them?

It's interesting how this plays out in reverse to the typical copyright fights - people violating US intellectual property law in Pakistan (or wherever) are often litigated under those US laws; here they're litigating against Americans based on Pakistani laws.

Indeed, in the final appeal that failed in Pakistan against these laws (Zaheeruddin v. State) the Supreme Court bench cited the Coca-Cola trademark as an example

Im sure they do sell ads in Pakistan and want in the future?

An independent state could strangle that business in many easy ways if that is their mission, therefor Google will eventually do whatever it takes to stay in the market.

They shouldn't and haven't taken global action against the developers. The apps remain available outside of Pakistan - you can find them if you search for "ahmadiyya muslim community quran".

The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.

If you live in a society without religious freedom, that's a big problem, but Apple and Google can't fix it.

If you care about the problem, it's important to understand this. If you succeed in getting people to focus on symptom of the problem and not the cause, you will help prevent it from being addressed.

Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.

Those open platforms exist. Can the apps in question be downloaded in Pakistan via F-Droid?

What about the iOS users? AFAIK, it's more likely the Ahmadiyyas have iPhones since they are a relatively well-off community compared to the rest of Pakistan (or the Muslim world in general).

Very good point. I had my viewpoint focused on Android and forgot that the side-loading question on Apple is very different.

I can tell you none of my cousins over there who belong to that community had an iPhone last time I saw them, they were busy making fun of an old iPhone I had brought to sell compared to their Androids

Just as we have laws that prevent US organizations from giving or taking bribes even in countries where bribes are legal (FCPA), and US laws prevent US individuals from overseas sex tourism which would be illegal on US soil, what prevents us from requiring US organizations not to participate in religious oppression, child exploitation, and other such acts?

Nothing. That would be a good way to solve this problem.

You would further have to require US organizations not to do business with other organizations that participate in oppression, etc., transitively. And have to have a way to enforce that.

Would this not just lead to a fragmentation of whatever industry? e.g. if google / apple can't legally do business in Pakistan or some other countries because of these laws, presumably someone like China will step in and provided the missing products or services. Not that this is necessarily a bad situation ethnically anyways, but there are consequences.

>Apple and Google put themselves in a position where they became a part of the problem. If they ran open platforms where they don't have to power to ban apps this would never have happened.

In this particular case, what problem would open platforms solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple and Google should be on the hook for solving religious problems in other countries? If so, I think wanting companies to engineer social behavior in other countries is a dangerous path bordering on the unethical (IMO).

But having said all that, whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? Ultimately, the app has to be downloaded from somewhere. Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that,etc ,etc. It's just whack-a-mole.

Each of the two alternate steps you mentioned are an order of magnitude more difficult than just banning the app.

I don't think its an order of magnitude. Blocking CDNs that host APKs and P2P traffic is fairly easy to implement. Most firewalls will let you do this. The more wide-scale you want to deploy your app, the easier it will be to detect (more asymmetry) and block the hosting source.

Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I believe the best approach to the problem is solving it bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing "western morals" on a developing country.

Telegram is 'blocked' in Russia, yet you can still get the APK, you can install it, it works, torrents work, etc. It's crazy popular.

The action you describe were tried anf they broke half the internet, and were backpedalled.

You can make the same arguments for bribery. Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad and US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics.

Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.

"...US companies end up selling off their holdings in banana republics."

Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.

Chiquita/Columbia/FARC after Sept 11, AFAIK the actual crime they were fined for was the bribery (past payments to govt side), though they had the new problem of terrorist lists (any future payments to FARC side).

> Nonetheless it is illegal for a US company to bribe people abroad

IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)

Can you explain what 'same argument' you're referring to in your comment?

I think you are saying companies should break US laws regarding a topic (religious discrimination) while abroad in order to honor foreign laws if that is necessary in order to operate in a country.

I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.

I don't get it. Why would any government allow a business to operate if they don't respect local laws. Would the US allow that?

On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :)

I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.

Finance is the peaceful other means if you enforce laws on the people you can in order to keep it peaceful.

US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor.

Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic.

To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?

For a US company to do business in another country, if they are unable to conduct business without breaking US law, then the answer is clear. They simply cannot do business without incorporating separately as a new entity in the foreign country. In the case of a national, they may have to change their citizenship if they wish to take up that job, etc. Yes, it totally sucks that the world cannot agree on certain basic principles, but I believe we must promote change peacefully without threats/force.

In any case, I think we're way off topic here, trying to solve the worlds problems in the comment section. The last word is yours :)

Laws don't matter without the ability to enforce them.

Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised control, but that is what allows those countries to very easily enforce these kinds of laws.

Yes, I agree with what you said.

> what problem would open platforms solve?

If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there were many competing app stores, then people could get around theses bans more easily.

For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone, and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so, via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if Apple banned the app from the app store.

> whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers?

They could do that, but if it was easy to install apps on a phone, then it would be very difficult for a country to block every website that hosts the app.

> . Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that

Governments are not infinitely powerful. An efforts to get around government internet censorship, sometimes work.

And the more methods there are of circumventing government censorship, the easier it is to do so.

Censorship has an effect. But it is not perfect. There is a spectrum of behavior, where it can be easier or harder to get around censorship.

You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country, while the business is working against the interests of said government. Apple and Google are businesses who operate in various countries with the objective of making money.

I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be in charge of engineering social behavior around the world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.

> You can't reasonably expect a government to welcome a business into their country

But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold in the country.

It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country.

> should be in charge of engineering social behavior

Intel is already selling PCs though.

Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics?

> In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.

So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?

>It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country.

Because they made a mistake once, they should make it twice? Well, that isn't likely to convince them!

>Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics?

You seem to be really passionate about this, and somehow think that I oppose open platforms. I never said that, and I don't.

>So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?

No, I don't think that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is simply not a good faith conversation. I'm out.. sorry.

> Because they made a mistake once, they should make it twice?

What I am saying is that you are suggesting an extraordinary measure. In the same way that banning all PCs is an extraordinary measure.

Such a measure would have wide reaching consequences, and large costs. Most governments are not completely irrational. They respond to incentives, and if something is very difficult to do, then they are going to be less likely to do it.

And making all phones illegal, sounds like something that would be more difficult to do, than banning a couple app stores.

> No, I don't think that.

Ok cool. So then if the phone manufactures made it so their phones were all unlocked, which is what I am recommending that they do, then you would not say that this is going down a dangerous path.

Got it. You agree with my original position that they should sell unlocked devices.

They can't ban a windows pc software like this as it's not walled garden. When phones come with app store, they must be responsible.

They can block the hosting servers, domains, etc. They can also block you from searching the name of the app, etc. There are multiple tools of censorship that are available to governments. Banning the app is the easiest.

Here we are talking about blocking by google and apple, not whether url can be blocked.

How come would that not happen? Apps come from somewhere and they are installed on someone's platform. The government can simply ask the provider of those apps to stop providing them and/or the provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed. Your only choice then is to comply or stop doing business in that country.

So the only reasonable complaint I could see against these companies now is "maybe they should have stopped doing business in that country" which would allow them to take the high moral road. Ofc that wouldn't necessarily result in better freedom for the people in the country, just fewer services than the rest of the world but it is a possible choice.

If the provider of the app has no footprint in the oppressive country, and Apple and Google have control because they have open platforms, then the apps will continue to be available.

> provider of the platform to stop allowing for them to be installed

The fact that this is possible (worse on iOS) is the architectural and political tragedy of these app stores. A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that.

> A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that.

What if end users who buy the device WANT the manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device malware- and spyware-free?

Do you think Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan want Apple and the Pakistani government to forbid them from installing the software they like? Do you think they feel safe because of this? It is common for totalitarian systems to cite user/citizen safety to justify themselves. I encourage you to see past this bullshit.

I am talking about my own telephone, also from Apple.

Apple doesn't give one without the other. I think they could though; software could be sandboxed without an American corporation exerting authoritarian control over the distribution of software. But Apple has no interest in providing something like that, they like money too much.

Does Pakistan force Microsoft to bar the installation of Ahmadiyya software on Windows? I expect not. Windows, closed source as it is, is open relative to iOS and consequently is less vulnerable to this sort of pressure.

You're right that if they ran open platforms where they don't have the power to ban apps this never would have happened: someone else who made a basically malware-free experience for phones would be in that position instead.

An "open platform" where every inexperienced user can install whatever they want on their device is a world where most every phone has several remote access malware/spyware packages installed on it.

Centralizing these functions is good, in some respects.

Apple and Google can't fix Pakistan. They can control how they respond, though. And how they responded looks pretty spineless.

What do you think they should do?

Me? I think they should close any facilities they have in Pakistan, tell Pakistan plainly that they're not going to do that, and keep making the app available. (Of course, I don't own any stock, so it's kind of painless for me to have that opinion.)

The thing is, neither Apple nor Google wants a future where the only apps available are those that lie in the intersection of what is legal in 180 different jurisdictions. (I mean, Myanmar just blocked Facebook. What if they demanded that Google and Apple remove the Facebook app from their stores?) The alternatives are to have a different store for each country (do-able technically, but a lot of work, and I don't like it on freedom grounds), or to just say no to some countries' demands that some apps be removed.

Specifically Apple: You had the "1984" Super Bowl commercial. Are you now going to be on the side of the censors? Or are you still on the side of freedom?

> the only apps available are those that lie in the intersection of what is legal in 180 different jurisdictions.

On Android at least, apps can be region-locked.

> keep making the app available

Leaving Pakistan means shutting down their Pakistani App Store, so the app still won't be available.

(Someone could, say, put the app on the US store and Pakistanis might be able to figure out a way to get it from there... but they can do that either way.)

> ...The alternatives are to have a different store for each country

OK, I guess you don't know this yet, but that's the way it is and has been the whole time. Different laws, different stores. We already aren't stuck with the intersection of what's allowed in 180 different jurisdictions.

> Leaving Pakistan means shutting down their Pakistani App Store, so the app still won't be available.

If Apple chose not to exercise totalitarian control over iOS users by making their App Store essential to installing software on iOS devices, then Apple would not have to collaborate with the totalitarian Pakistani government. Pakistani religious and ethnic minorities could distribute software through whatever covert channels they've already established to resist their oppressive government.

And the (rather massive) flaw in yours is the idea that "fixing" and "not fixing" a problem are the only two possible outcomes.

Would Apple and Google condemning this policy and refusing to comply "fix" the problem? Probably not. Is it the right thing to do? Of course! One certainly shouldn't help enforce an unjust law. This action lends a huge amount of credibility to an immoral policy.

We're focusing on this mere "symptom" of the problem because it's Apple and Google. Our laws govern those companies. Our (seemingly theoretical) ability to control them means we are partially responsible when they do bad things.

Ultimately "refusing to comply" means exiting the Pakistan market (and accepting arbitrarily harsh fines and criminal punishments for their employees until they do).

> One certainly shouldn't help enforce an unjust law.

The law is being enforce on them. Your moral responsibility for a situation is proportionate to your power over that situation. Apple and Google have some sway due to their size, but it seems to me it's limited. I suspect that in a direct sense they largely suck money out of the Pakistani economy rather than pump money in, which really blunts their influence.

> Our laws govern those companies.

In Pakistan, Pakistani laws govern those companies. The US (and other nations) could impose economic sanctions on Pakistan for this (which would affect the business Apple, Google and others from do there). If that's what you want then you need to be lobbying your politicians.

I'm confident we only disagree on the threshold of injustice. Surely there is a point where exiting the market is the only moral thing to do? Or does the responsibility-proportional-to-power argument justify subjecting your business to literally any law?

To me, this law is past the threshold where it is morally acceptable to continue to do business in that nation. For you, that threshold is somewhere else, but I'm confident that you have one. Which of the following semi-hypothetical laws would it be acceptable for an American company to enforce, rather than ceasing business operations in the country?

1. Take-down of apps used to propagate what the state considers blasphemy

2. Take-down of apps used to advertise the democratic candidate of the party opposing the party in power

3. Requirement that the location data of all users of a certain set of apps, e.g. Grindr, be actively provided to state officials

4. Requirement that the location data of all users be provided to state officials with a court order

5. Same as 4, but without a court order

6. Requirement that the state be given the ability to arbitrarily adjust the prominence of web search results

I could go on, but you get the picture. I'll bet there are things on this list that you would be uncomfortable with your employer, or an American company whose services you used, helping to enforce. There are also probably some things on the list that you think are futile for individuals or companies to resists, even if you wish the law wasn't that way. I think that's is all there is to our disagreement: That we draw the line in a slightly different spot.

> Surely there is a point where exiting the market is the only moral thing to do?

Agreed.

But I don't think this case is it. Mainly because exiting does pretty much nothing to prevent Pakistani persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims. It's like you see a bully picking on a kid every day at the park and you just decide to go to a different park. Maybe you feel a little better about it yourself, but it doesn't help the kid.

This can be done on a larger scale, which will have a strong impact. I'm talking about economic sanctions via the UN or at least the US, where certain kinds of business are not allowed or restricted. In theory these kinds of sanctions could force countries to liberalize. But the reality isn't always that great. The general population ends up bearing the economic misery while the people in power, who make the decisions, do not. The general population tends to get resentful of the west, not adopt its values, and the people in power keep enjoying their power anyway. It seems these sanctions can turn countries inward, not outward, becoming more extreme and less liberal. North Korea, Iran, Russia.

> It's like you see a bully picking on a kid every day at the park and you just decide to go to a different park. Maybe you feel a little better about it yourself, but it doesn't help the kid.

I think this is a really good analogy if you flesh it out completely.

Eve is bullying Alice, and says that anybody who plays with Alice will be chased from the park. Alice asks to play with Bob, and now Bob has a choice to make.

Bob thinks, "If I play with Alice, it won't last long. Eve will force me from the park, and Alice won't get to play anyway. And I won't be able to play either! At least, not at this park."

So Bob decides the right thing to do is to continue playing with the other kids at the park, but never Alice.

I think Bob made the wrong call here. The alternative was not merely "deciding to go to a different park", it was standing up for Alice. The cause of his departure, and the fact that it was Eve that forced him, is important. It's not just Bob who "feels a little better about himself", it's Alice.

"exiting does pretty much nothing to prevent Pakistani persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims"

Theybare direvtly enabling it in a way pakistani government would be unable to without them. And they are not going to give up smartphones if both Google and apple refuse.

Surely if hypothetical bazis asked Google and Apple for location of all jews, you would not be like "well, they can't loose business over this"

> The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.

Nor should they even attempt to, because the moment they get involved in policy making you have an army of HNs complaining how large corporations influence politics.

No one asked for them to get involved in policy making. They're referring to making their platforms more open such that neither Apple nor Google have complete dictation of what is downloaded and installed.

Especially in Apple's case, this would be a useless ban if they let people download apps outside of the App Store.

Do you think Apple would make as much money from iPhones if they allowed side loading?

Leave out the word religious. Lack of religious freedom usually comes along with a lot of other rights being trampled on.

We must admit that there are people in this world who do and say things we do not agree with. However the same system which expands from trampling on religious rights to other rights is no different than a system which tramples on another right and eventually tramples religion.

Corporations have little choice when faced with government intervention and we cannot seriously hold these corporations accountable for bowing down to political pressure elsewhere when we allow our own government a free pass for doing the same or turning a blind eye to it.

To change how businesses operate abroad we must change how our government operates. We should hold both to the same standard but government must lead because it has the courts, the arms, and the laws, to pressure one but the other has little it can do to pressure it

>The (rather massive) flaw in your reasoning is the idea that Google and Apple are the solution to the problem.

What makes you say that?

I see nothing in their comment which implies Google and Apple could or should solve the problems of oppressive countries.

If a criminal who wants to commit murder asks me to sell them a gun and I decline, it would be absurd to think that implied I thought I could solve the problem of murder.

Rather, I would simply be refusing to be a conscious, direct enabler of murder. It would be nakedly malicious for me to reason "well, if I don't sell them this gun, someone else will, so I might as well make some money."

Pakistan has a constitution.

Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government.

There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution.

> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution

You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.

People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech, and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that ethical principle begs the question of the ethical principle itself.

Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.

And to insist that "begging the question" refers to a specific logical fallacy is to ignore well-established present-day vernacular usage.

In everyday discussion, pedantry rarely helps. In this case, it was pretty obvious what was meant.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-questi...

Astute observation.

Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue.

The entire discussion to me is as simple as I stated.

> Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue.

Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate efforts to address moral aspects of the issue.

If the moral aspect of an issue has universal consensus, there is little to discuss. This criteria shuts down meaningful discussion of ethics.

Edit: Laws follow from values, especially in democracies. As values change, eventually laws change, including the constitution. The gp was raising ethical considerations for us to consider. To me it seems like you discount and trivialize these concerns.

Okay fine.

The person I responded to made arguments that were primarily about hypothetical legal capabilities of western countries, in a bid to make us empathize on an ethical issue. Their argument failed because their analogies would have actually have to look at what legal route each country individually chose to accomplish their censorship. Which means looking at how Pakistan accomplished this censorship first. Pakistan has a constitution that supports this and requires the rulers to be arbiters of what is and isnt represented as muslim.

The reality then is that I did not comment on an ethical issue at all because my comment was not about that and won’t be, because there is no mystery about the legal authority of Pakistan to do that and the path to consensus of changing that is so high (big assumption that I would care to do so or care about that discussion) that it is far outside of the scope of this particular discussion.

Usually, the assertive arguments on non-technical ideas are difficult to address.

It's easy to identify the fundamental misconception in the argument. But the proponent is always very fervent on that point from the very beginning. That makes the debate more ideological and less rational.

That's the conundrum of such debates. The balance heavily favors the first one who claimed the high ground, regardless what value that one actually stands for.

Can you elaborate on this? I feel like I grok 55% of this, and that it is probably worth grokking, if I could get there.

So rational arguments have to be based on the foundation that either or both of the opposite sides can and should change thoughts based on the information exchanged during the conversation.

Assertive non technical argument usually is based certain belief(s), which are often obviously wrong outside it's narrow scope.

But these arguments are held by people actually believe in them with a conviction that is clearly based on emotions therefore by definition irrational.

So when someone engaged in such argument and tries to argue otherwise, the discussion has to be like try to mold a steel cylinder with a bear hand. Sure you can wear down a steel cylinder with bear hand, through enough patience and time. But in the span of a discussion, that's impossible.

Thus, the one who stick the steel cylinder first is bound to win, or at least not loose, for example, the counterpart decide to stick their own cylinder and 2 sides appear no longer engage, until the circumstance requires the clash or some random side wire that causes the clash.

> On another hand you have Google and Apple, yet again, being the complicit chokepoints of “free speech”, with regard to app developers.

And how is that detail is pertinent to this discussion?

If it wasn't Google or Apple it would be other companies. Even if it wasn't large companies it would be 100 smaller companies and all those 100 smaller companies would have to comply (even more so because they have fewer resources to fight a government deciding things in their own country).

Smaller companies might not have as much commercial exposure in Pakistan - i.e. if they have no formal business presence there, what would be the consequences for them not complying? For example, if these "apps" were traditional Windows executables instead who would the government on Pakistan lean on to get them blocked? The best they could do is attempt a "great firewall of China" style block on internet traffic itself.

You make a great argument for Governments that support religious freedom. Not sure I follow your logic to a conclusion that makes Apple and Google the villains here though.

A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not. There is no choice that involves serving those users but not following the oppressive laws of said country.

By following this oppressive law to "serve those users," Apple and Google appear to be partaking in the oppression of those users.

Is oppression additive/cumulative/composable/transitive?

When someone has the power to do "fix" things but chooses not to, then that someone is partially responsible. Can A or G (or together) fix this?

It sure seems additive in this case. Google & Apple can choose not to do business in regulatory regimes that are oppressive in nature. That obviously comes at a direct cost of lost revenue from abstinence. It is a deliberate choice to do business anywhere at all. The simple fix here as you say, would be to stop doing business when forced to enact business practices that further oppression.

Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the choice to assent to this.

If they choose not to do business will that fix the problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away?

Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question.

The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression.

How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression?

(I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc.

In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression.

So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case.

In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)

> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)

Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.

I recommend everybody to do so too. But not for this direct moral reason. (Which I'm honestly and sadly too ignorant and uncertain about.) I think there's room for smaller/niche providers, a subculture of self-hosters.

Oppressive regimes even of the most extreme order still need to deal with reality and the choices of other parties that aren't fully within their control. If Google/Apple were to take a stand here and walk away, it would put tremendous pressure on Pakistani government, and make this a hot button issue. Imagine the entire nation waking up one day to find that their apps no longer function because their leaders made choices that they likely weren't even aware were being made. It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. Pakistan is a democracy, however broken it may be, and you can sure bet that other political parties would step in to fill this role.

> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people.

I mean no, that's definitely not the analogy. When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. It's not some innocent bystander thing, they literally have to write code or take other actions to make this happen. Remember, the status quo is that the apps stay in the store today. An explicit action is required to change that.

China did it. Many countries routinely block Google stuff.

> It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders.

How can we be certain of that? I think many people drastically underestimate the number of people who a) don't care b) are invested in the regime c) gullible d) care, but won't do anything because they don't want to rock the boat, e) care, want to rock the boat, but won't because protesting is still not without some danger.

Yes, sure, other political parties would do whatever they do. Does that work? Not really. (Maybe over long-long periods of time.)

> When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression.

Agreed. Yet it's close to meaningless to look at it in a vacuum. Their choices are a) comply, don't even put up a fight, b) comply, try to exhaust legal options, b) stop doing business there.

I'm asking how to weigh those. What's best for the people of Pakistan. What's best for this particular vulnerable/oppressed group? What's best for all people?

There is obvious choice: dont give yourself the ability to control and sensor , and then be surprised when governments want you to press the button.

I am not sure if it is that simple, and I think companies have little choice but to be greedy, because if they choose not to be greedy, another greedier company is all but guaranteed to prevail. I suppose it could be argued that companies the size of Apple and Google are not bound by the same constraints as smaller companies. But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What about all the people who would be deprived of Apple and Google products/services?

> But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers?

What happens to Pakistani users of Debian, if Debian doesn't do business in Pakistan? Nothing. Those users are fine. iOS users would be in a bind only because Apple chose to create a system where users are left high-and-dry if/when Apple decides to no longer do business in any country.

A somewhat disingenuous argument. Debian isn’t physical hardware.

It's not selling physical hardware that binds Apple here; it's having an app store that requires the cooperation of national government to process payments. Pakistan could forbid Apple from opening Apple Stores in Pakistan, but Pakistanis would likely still be able to purchase apple products through resellers and/or black/graymarkets. And if iOS were not locked to Apple's authoritarian app store, oppressed ethnic minorities in Pakistan could distribute software through through their preexisting covert channels.

Both choices seem terrible to me: either stop serving swaths of users or take part in removing their freedom. If Apple and Google fostered a strong community of alternative app stores, they wouldn't have to make this choice at all.

Does one of those choices seriously not sound worse than the other?

It depends on how you measure "worse". I gather you're alluding to the moral argument, and I completely agree: Google leaving Pakistan is my gut reaction to this.

But public companies have shareholders that demand the company optimize for revenue, so I assume they are balancing that as well. This means they are weighing value systems against one another.

I was trying to highlight an opportunity to encourage other app stores to reconcile this tension to some degree. Allowing/encouraging other app stores will no doubt impact revenue to some degree, but perhaps not a great degree, since it mostly acts as an escape hatch in cases like this (convenience seems to dominate user behavior). But it would also allow Google/Apple to continue to serve users in Pakistan, some of whom might not agree with their government's position.

The subtext here is that I fundamentally disagree with the argument that users should be disallowed from installing apps of their choice from sources of their choice on devices they purchased. I know this is a fringe opinion, so I was eager to point out how it might help in this situation.

I understand. Apologies if I came off as confrontational. You make good points.

For one, not being able to use Google or Apple products would be such a hit to the modern way of life that people might become less complacent. To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in, but it makes sense that people would be more likely to stand up to tyranny when something very important to them is swiftly taken away. Even the simple act of taking a stance against these practices might inspire people to fight for their freedom.

Now, of course, all of these are small chances and all the ususl caveats of revolutions apply, but surely G&A continuing to do business there benefits nobody but themselves?

"To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in"

Perhaps you should blame the people, if by the people you mean the Pakistani populace. I say this as a Pakistani. The issue of discrimination towards Ahmedis is something that has widespread support among the populace. From uneducated masses to university professors, poor to rich. Very few people actually oppose the discrimination towards Ahmedis.

And those who speak up to support Ahmedis have to be very careful. The issue with Ahmedis is always pretty closely linked to the issue with blasphemy and of protecting the "Prophet's honor" in Pakistan.

Many people have been killed over the blasphemy issue and even those who would say that blasphemy laws need to be revised were killed.

You can look up the murder of Salman Taseer, the chief minister of Punjab (one of Pakistan's 4 provinces, and the largest province by population). Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard for saying that blasphemy laws should be reviewed.

Why are Pakistani people dismissive of arguments for support for Ahmedis? Sure, it might be ultimately their own making, but how much of that is the product of brainwashing by certain rival groups trying to gain power? It seems the people are just as much trapped in this, even if they don't realize. (Like the QAnon cultists in the US. And there's a very big political party in the US basically cheering them on for very-very-very short sighted goals.)

People ought to know better, people have the responsibility to better themselves, their thought patterns, their reasoning, refine their worldview ... but if their ability to do so is already thin, it's hard to blame people, since - it seems - they had very little power to act responsible.

The best analogy I could give you is the Mormons in the 1830s, or Jews for Jesus if the Orthodox Jews were in charge of enforcing penalties on the books for "epikoros"

Honestly, I don't know the first thing about the situation over there, so I wanted to make sure it didn't sound like I was blaming the oppressed people for being opressed and not fighting for their freedom hard enough.

But if there are indeed large parts of the population that supoort this kind of oppression, then that might actually support the argument for not doing business with them. In that case, not only do you anger the victims to revolt, but also maybe force the oppressors to reconsider if oppressing whatever group of people is worth losing access to so much of modern technology over.

Of course, the possibility is that the oppressors just lash out and make things worse for the victims, or find other ways of hurting them, but despite that possibility, I'd still argue it's more moral for G&A to refuse their demands and leave the country if they have to.

Actually there is. Don't set up physical presences in oppressive countries. Architect your software to not rely on singular chokepoints like centralized servers.

We've seem to have forgotten this, because it's not economically expedient. But we shouldn't give these companies a pass for having set themselves up to be instruments of totalitarianism.

According to the article, Pakistan (along with China, Vietnam, Germany, Nigeria, and Russia among others) requires physical presence and data localization in order to do business.

Or what? A physical presence is one of the only leverage points they'd have over you. If you don't accede to that, what are they going to do?

Obviously I'm describing a much different tack than Google and Apple have chosen, and switching between the two isn't easy. But the point is that Google and Apple could have set themselves up this way, likely with the full blessing of the State Department. They chose not to and now predictably find themselves being used to implement totalitarianism.

Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands, but that just illustrates why they shouldn't have built in digital restrictions to their devices. I doubt Asus is finding themselves under such pressure, because they simply don't have the technical capability to control what users run on their computers.

> Their situation is a bit stickier being hardware brands,

I agree with your general point but not this part. Apple products still find their way into countries with no Apple Stores. I don't think selling physical products really makes the situation much sticker. If Apple chose to be a pure hardware company and refused to do any business in Pakistan, Pakistanis could still purchase Apple devices through the usual resellers and/or [black/gray]markets. Pakistan would have no leverage over Apple, as you point out, and Apple would not be a participant in the implementation totalitarianism (as they presently are.)

Eh, it does not sound like you thought this through. I would prefer my medical data to reside in my country, so that its governed by privacy laws I vited for.

The whole blockclain free-for-all ungovernable banansa has it's place, but its not for everything.

It sounds like you live in a country that is not Pakistan, where it's likely to make more sense for tech companies to operate within the system rather than staying outside of it. Even so, it would ultimately be up to you whether to trust any specific company with your "medical data", with one of the factors being whether they were bound by your country's legal system or not.

And who mentioned anything about blockchain? The philosophy of routing around censorship and end user empowerment is much older than blockchains, and that you're pigeonholing the ethos as "blockchain" just shows how much we've forgotten.

As it stands, as someone from one of those countries that's recently managed to reign in companies without such physical presence, there's a lot they can do.

It typically starts from automated ISP/NSP level blockages of assigned IP spaces, then an import / licensure ban and typically even extends to full ban on payment outflow (or automatically enforced surcharges).

To effectively fight against this, the company has to be prepared to lose access to its entire userbase in that country. As we've found more and more often recently though, not many are.

Notice that Debian wasn't forced to take down any apps, which shows choice 3: Do not place themselves in the position of arbiters of what apps their users may run (either by technical locks, such as Apple, or by making alternatives extremely inconvenient, such as Google).

> A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not

I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an ethical person. You're just an opportunist.

Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them, well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing. Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.

Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law, operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to iPhone users in China.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...

Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies) complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the almighty $$.

Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance and left China I thought?

It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...

It always starts with a "new leadership"...

No matter what the PR departments of these corporations would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's always about the money. These corporations are fair-weather activists at best.

I think Larry and Sergey still basically control the thing. They both have far more money than they know what to do with. Why would they compromise that much when the money makes no difference to them?

Honestly, I didn't know that specific thing. I was speaking generally.

The first time I said it was to someone who told me that while they personally have no problem with people of other races, they could never hire someone "like that" to work and their business because the racist town they lived in wouldn't like it, and it would hurt business.

This person was totally against racism, unless it would hurt them financially.

Taking an ethical stand when it doesn't hurt you isn't taking an ethical stand.

Google did exit the Chinese market though and its stock price has since under-performed the competitors that did not.

I really wish all of Google’s and alphabet’s problems were due to their occasional principled stance.

And that is to be commended and respected

If you think "the ethical thing" is to undermine governments which don't conform to our values... do you vote for the most hawkish candidate in every election? Are you joined up with the armed forces? Why not? America could bring the whole world to heel on "freedom & democracy," and yet even people who think of themselves as righteous, don't want to. Why?

Could it be that cost is actually a good argument?

Could it be that trying to impose your own system of morality on the whole world is not actually a moral act?

>America could bring the whole world to heel on "freedom & democracy"

Nuclear weapons may have something to say about that...

Which is why letting a country develop nuclear weapons is a serious thing. It’s assenting to everything they might want to do, forever.

"trying to impose your own system of morality on the whole world"

You are comically missing the point. Microsoft does not get asked to take down software from windows.

Apple and Google shouldnt have the ability to apply unilateral censorship.

How is it ethical to deny information discovery to oppressed people?

That's called "finding a justification for unethical behaviour".

"Well overall it's better if I do the unethical thing because when you think about it REALLY it's for the best- and yes, I'll make some extra money this way, but that's unrelated to why I've searched my soul for any reason to make this okay".

Google et al aren't denying information to oppressed people. Their governments are. The companies have to decide whether they will be complicit or not.

I'm from a developing nation who has a good tech career. I give a lot of credit to YouTube and Google for that. Denying that option to me is very costly. I'd rather have a censored version to nothing. It's just a pragmatic choice. However if Google is able to arm twist the government and remove the censor, nothing like it.

french secularism is beautiful. all are equal under law. and freedom FROM religion. if your friend and his friends had this thing where they chopped of skin from their babies genitals. would you be ok with that? why is it ok when religious people do it? clearly following dogma in this case over reason is the symptom of mental illness or damage. religions are much more oppressive if you ask me. they function without a state or government. they are a low evolved form of government used to gain power.

> french secularism is beautiful.

As an indian, I have to somewhat disagree. I find the idea of secularism beautiful and necessary for a democracy but the french way of implementing it uncomfortable and some what extremist (but understand their historic roots).

Secularism in India is certainly inspired by US and European democracy (especially France), but is not similar:

  The Court also discussed the concept of "Indian Secularism", which was said to be based on "equal tolerance of all religions". Indian Secularism was distinct from Western Secularism as it is not anti-religious. It gives to all its citizens equal freedom of conscience and religion.

('Reckless Statements Demeaning Another Religious Faith Will Only Sow Seeds Of Hatred' : Madras High Court Warns Evangelist While Quashing FIR - https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/demeaning-another-religi... ).

In practice, this means that the state doesn't believe it has to compete with religious ideas for its existence.

So it doesn't mind if you display your religious identity in a government office or in public schools. So unlike France (and some other European states) that would frown on a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim displaying their respective Gods or religion's symbols or even praying in government office, all these practices are quite common in India.

One of the idea behind this is that people tend to view the unfamiliar with suspicion and distrust.

And religion also introduces certain cultural beliefs in a society. Thus, in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like ours, restricting cultural practices can create intolerance - people are generally more accepting of each other when they are exposed to each others culture, including religious ones, and understand it.

Thus, not being "anti-religious" is especially helpful for the majority to understand the minority, and the minority to be comfortable in the society because everyone is encouraged to treat differing beliefs with tolerance (if not acceptance).

Another reasoning is that the state understands that every human also aspires to spiritually develop. (The state doesn't consider spiritual development as necessarily religious in nature, but recognizes that it is the majority practice). Thus, indian secularism focuses on inclusiveness and equality by treating everyone as a spiritual being, and thus eschews being anti-religious.

Instead of forcing any religious reforms from the top, it encourages reformists to work with the respective section of society for the changes they seek. Only when they have gained a certain momentum do they start considering it as political issue which needs legislative intervention. (Over the past 100 years, this is how Indian society has slowly done away with retrograde religious practices). This slow approach is necessary to make the reforms more acceptable and lasting in society.

We could use the Guillotine too, but look at Turkey now after its staunch secularist leader who enforced secularism using state power, passed away ... if secularism doesn't come from society, it cannot survive. We in India too are now facing the same issue as the political party in power tries to push a religious identity on to our country and make many think that the ideas of secularism is not needed in India.

Uh uh... most of this is untrue.

The "Indian Secularism" is mostly what was leftover from the colonial era mixed with Traditional Hindu values.

However, the Govt tries to "correct" or "change" the Native traditions periodically.

Obviously our colonial history has had a huge impact on our psyche, and influenced our democracy. As for "traditonal hindu values" or "native traditions", these are clever bogus arguments used by the current right-wing to do away with the indian secularism envisioned and enshrined in our constitution.

absolutely. "Indian secularism" is the exact opposite of secularism. It's just discrimination on the basis of religious identity.

India is not secular, and whatever goes on in India in the name of secularism is the exact opposite of it. Rights are sanctioned and denied based on religious identity.

In case you want to know how bad it is, the ones the most oppressed and poor are the lower caste hindus, and even now, it's illegal for a lower caste hindu to open and run school exclusively for lower caste hindus even with his own money. It's not just that state won't do it, but it has made it illegal for individual citizens to do it as well. Remember these are the folks with no money, no land and no connections. Their only means for social mobility is education. Meanwhile, a christian or muslim does it, he/she gets state funding, and the upper caste hindus are well off and connected. It's just caste system with extra steps. Of course this is well supported by upper caste hindus, muslims and christians - the old elite class.

Aside from that, hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed, while other religions gets absolute freedom to run their institutions however - taxfree. Again, this is relic of colonial briton who really wanted to control the hindus as the main opposition to the raj came in the form of hindu nationalism.

It's a religious apartheid state against the poor hindus - a relic of colonialism happily continued by the Indian elites who wielded power once the british left most likely because they hated the poor hindus even more than the british themselves.

"We poor majority Hindus are being marginalised by the minority in India in the name of secularism."

(Note that in India around 80% of the population is Hindu, and the minorities are less than 20%).

The sophistry of argument is interesting here when it is claimed that lower caste Hindus cannot setup their own exclusive schools, while the minorities can (the right-wing claims this as "discrimination" introduced in the name of secularism). Funnily, such demands for a caste-exclusive institutions have always come from certain upper-caste dominated religious right-wing in India, who actually look down on the lower caste in India and don't socially interact with them unless they absolutely have to. They yearn for the days were every caste was educated by their own community, thus "preserving the purity" of the caste system (which is part of the Hindu religious system).

With such a mindset, it is quite understandable why they would like to set up "exclusive and pure" schools that is only for their caste community. Caste discrimination continues to be a huge problem in India, and it should be thus quite obvious why the government of India has no interest in allowing such exclusive caste-based schools - it can lead to caste ghettoization that would just prolong and make the evils of caste discrimination worse.

Hindus can absolutely setup their own private schools and colleges in India, but it cannot be "exclusively Hindu" or some "caste exclusive" only institution. But this is true for minority run institutes too - they can only allocate 50% of the seats to students of their community, while the remaining 50% has to be filled with students from other community.

Apart from this 50% seats for their own community, they are also given more autonomy to run their institutions.

Why are they so allowed?

The indian state believes that minorities rightly have a concern that they can be deprived of educational opportunities as the majority hugely outnumber them. Thus, to allay this fear the constitution grants them the protection and privilege of running their own institutions which can be exclusively for their community to a certain extent, with more autonomy (which implies less interference from a "majority" run government).

Since any Hindu can start and run a school or a college, and thanks to the nature of India's population, it is guaranteed to be filled with more than 50% Hindus, we can rightly guess that the real issue that the Hindutva right-wing have is:

- They can't run castiest schools.

- They have issues with the "extra" autonomy granted to minority run institutes.

I have already addressed why India doesn't allow castiest institutes. On autonomy in minority institutes, it should be clear that this constitutional guarantee of autonomy is what prevents those in power from interfering in the affairs of minority run institutions (and was added in the constitution for precisely such a purpose - to protect the minorities from abuse by an unsympathetic majority in power).

This kind of fair balancing of the rights of the minorities, which the majorities are expected to defend and uphold, is what is attacked in the name of "flawed secularism".

> hindu temples and institutions are managed by the state and taxed,

Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority.

The reasoning is simple:

1. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions.

2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes.

3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu.

4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations.

5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner. However, their religious institutions are rightly allowed to be run by members of their own community.

So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes.

I love how you glossed over like 95% of my comment and latched on to temples and institutions. Anyway, let's see.

>Due to the real danger of right-wing religious fundamentalism in India, the constitution of India does dictate that the government administrate some of the major religious institutes of the majority.

and there is real danger of religious fundamentalism among muslims, christians, sikhs, parsis.. you name it. In fact, if you look at instances of religious fundamentalism, both christian and muslim fundamentalism vastly outnumber anything from everyone else combined. It's nothing but bigotry that you justify discrimination based on religious identity. Especially when your argument is "fundamentalism" - given you want to discriminate all hindus based on the expectation that some would be fundamentalist? This is pure bigotry, and your own religious extremism that wants to discriminate every single hindu. Remember it's the lower caste hindus who are not only poor, but discriminated and oppressed for good thousand years, and you want to discriminate and oppress the more? because some hindus might be fundamentalist? what kind of bigoted thought is that?

anyway, let's look at the rest of the arguments.

>. They can only administrate and not interfere in the religious affairs of the institutions.

You cannot administer temples without interfering in religious affairs - as they are for only religious purposes. But that's not it. It's fundamental right - every where in the world - to be able to run your own religious affairs. Secondly, government oversight and management leads to plunder of Hindu religious institutions and temples by those appointed by the government. Almost every single major temple has lost it's lands and wealth. Wealth that should have been used to start schools, hospitals and colleges - things that are useful for the devotee base. The political appointees are given exorbitant salaries while temple affairs are ignored (hell in 2018, tamilnadu priests had to approach the high court to increase their monthly salary from RS 20 - almost a third of a dollar - https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/petition-on-temple-pr...)

>2. This prevents the hijacking of the institutes by religious fundamentalists who can divert the huge funds donated, for political purposes.

I already covered this in my first para. Use this logic on your own religious affairs and see how you feel. It's nothing but bigoted excuse for religious discrimination.

>3. India being a majority Hindu country, will always have majority Hindus in power. Thus, the religious institutes will always be managed by a Hindu.

Nope.Patently false. The temples and institutions are managed by state governments. Almost every tamil nadu, kerala goverments have been openly inimical of hindu affairs. True for current Andhra government too. Sometimes the appointees are not even hindu. In fact the last government put a christian in charge of Tirumala affairs, and had to change it after public outrage. So, just not true.

A hindu politician in power means nothing to me as a lower caste hindu. Again, it doesn't matter. It's a fundamental right - anywhere in the world - to be able to manage your own religious affairs. I also want to address the "hindu majority" part - organized minority always wins against unorganized divided majority. The upper caste were minority. The hordes of islamic invaders who committed unspeakable horrors on native Indias were minority. The british who colonized entire India were minority. The europeans who conquered and genocided the natives in the Americas and Australia were minority. Also, Hindu community isn't monolithic. It's thousands of languages, millions of gods, even more traditions that wary within a few kilo meters, even more sacred texts - all collectively given a name. Hindu, Sindhu, India all have the same linguistic root. Viewing all of that with a single collectively identity is the work of Christianity and Islam - non Indic thoughts. It's like calling everyone on earth "people".

I also want to address your majority/minority thing. Why do you view everyone through the prism of religious believes/identity? Why not left handed person vs right handed ones? coffee lovers vs tea lovers? football vs cricket? Just because religious believes and identity is important to you and you view the world through the prism of religious believes doesn't mean the world should run based on it. It definitely shouldn't mean laws should be based on that. The only reason i speak on behalf of hindu rights is because the poor lower caste hindus who were oppressed for a millennia are discriminated even now based on their religious identity. Otherwise, who cares? Keep your religious believes to yourself and let others have theirs.

>4. Part of the funds donated to such religious institutes are ear marked for charitable purposes. People expect this to be fairly used, and trust the elected government to oversee this with strict rules and regulations.

Again, upto every single institution to prioritize things important to them. What is priority for your community maynot be what is priority for others. If you think government oversight is so good, do it for everyone. All I am asking is for equality. No discrimination. If I donate to a temple, I am donating to that temple/deity. This is not charity. Again, maybe different for you, but that is fine. Don't generalize and apply your worldview on others. That's the literal definition of religious fundamentalism - that even others live your religious code.

>5. Minority religions too have similar government administrative oversights to ensure that their donated funds are not misused in any manner.

No they don't. I know instances of Sunday masses and mosque committees openly campaigning for chosen political candidates. Article 29/30 gives you absolute freedom to run religious institutions and affairs however you want. Then you have article 25, NCMEI, and a slew of local bodies. Not saying it's good or bad, but this is what it is.

>So why are the majority religious right-wing in India pissed by this? For them, the only right Hindu eligible to manage temples is a Hindu approved by them. And they hate the fact that government appointed secular Hindus prevent them from taking over the religious institutes and (mis)using them for political purposes.

Ahh yes. Every hindu voicing about discrimination is because he is "right-wing". Never mind it's oppressing the ones who were already oppressed for good thousand years. Never mind overwhelming majority of the Hindus is impoverished. Never mind the only means for social mobility for vast majority of them is education, and these bigoted discriminatory laws prevent opening schools. I want you to look at your own sentence and replace "hindu" with your religious identity.

I also want to address a few points mentioned in your other post.

1) secularism is a function of state. Individuals aren't secular. In India, it's just code for non hindu, or a hindu that isn't religious.

2) caste schools - if you are so concerned, why not minority status for the lower caste hindus?

3) 50% - patently false. There are islamic schools where i am from that is 100% muslims. Schools which start at early morning and ends at 6 PM evening. Schools that kids young as 6 year old go in purdah. I want to know where you got the 50% from?

4) Hindus are allowed to operate schools - yes, but making it practically impossible with article 25, 29, 30, RTE and 93rd amendment. Also, as a dalit who escaped the system, it's ILLEGAL for me to start a school for impoverished and ignored dalit kids, as RTE forbids me in screening kids. Now if you argue this is to prevent upper caste only schools, then the same must be applicable to Muslims only schools and Christians only schools. Also, read point 2. Do the same exceptions for lower caste hindus.

I want to end this long post by saying that if you want to discriminate based on religious believes/identity, then you are a bigoted religious supremacist. No two ways about it.

See, this is where the whole argument falls bunks and your ignorance becomes apparent - You believe, wrongly, that the indian constitution only permits the government to "interfere and manage" the affairs of only the majority Hindu religion.

That is a false propaganda spread by the right-wing because the indian constitution also permits the government to oversees the administration of even the minority religious institutes by framing laws and regulations. And they do so. (Some states even have a whole ministry and their own state laws added to it).

E.g:

- Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee - This organisation is governed by the Chief Minister of Punjab (an elected politician) and is entrusted with the security and maintenance of all Gurudwaras and religious places of importance of the Sikhs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 defines how Sikh's religious institutes can be administered in the Delhi union territory.

- Waqf Act (1954 and 1995) and the Central Waqf Council of India: The religious and charitable institutions of muslims are administered by Waqfs (Trusts). The Central Waqf Council is headed by a Union Minister, along with 20 other members appointed by the Government of India. They oversee the administration of all the musim waqfs in India, creating the rules and guidelines and advising the state bodies. (By the way, there are now 30 government run Waqf boards in 28 states and other UTs in India).

- Indian Church Act, 1927 - Till it was repealed in 1960, it dictated the rules on administration of Churches. No new law replaced it. One of the reason being that that Christians forms less than 3% of the population and they often choose to register their movable and immovable properties under the the Societies Registration Act, and not under the Religious Endowment Act or The Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920. Thus, many of them come under the more stringent NGO laws in India, voluntary, and are managed more professionally. (After a recent scandal on misuse of church funds and properties in Kerala, the Kerala government plans to introduce a law to oversee their activities more stringently - https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/kerala-draft-bill-regu... ).

  So understand clearly that such arguments and propaganda of the right-wing that only Hindu religious institutes are governed by the Government of India is an absolute lie. Their real anger is with the fact that they cannot take-over the Temples and manage and misuse it for their political purposes. It has nothing to do with "secularism".

In fact, with The Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 the government even clearly defines what it considers to be illegal in any religious institute.

All the rest of your arguments that you believe and are just plain lies of the right-wing, without an iota of truth in them (some are facts that you have been misled into believing is wrong). I can point out the actual facts to you if you cite your sources for them.

Hilarious how you compare symbolic government representatives on waqf and gurudwara committe to be like government administration of temples.

1) in the case of temples, the money to run it comes from devotees, but the complete administration is done by the government. This means government hires and fires the employees, decides the salaries, have complete oversight of the money incoming and outgoing, decides what to do with the money. All of this is funded by the temple devotees.

I don't know much about gurudwara, and by own admissions, church act is null and void, but i can speak for waqf and mosques. Mosques have zero external interference. It's run by mosque committees formed of the local Muslim community elders. How is this even comparable?

As for waqf comitte, let's see. Sure they have namesake goverment appointee. But he does nothing in terms of setting the agenda on the waqf properties and institutions' administrations. They are completely decided by the Muslim community leaders who form bulk of the committee. They not only have complete independence on administration, in some cases (for eg: in kerala) their salary comes from state exchequer. So just to reiterate, temples are completely run by the state government with the funding coming from Hindu devotes, while the exact opposite is true for Muslim religious institutions, and you want to say both are same? Temple priests had to go to court (Indian courts that takes decades to settle a case) just to increase their salary from 20 rupees and you say they are same type of interference? That's a whole another level of gaslighting and bigotry.

To quote waqf kerala state website (first link on state waqf board google search): "The State Government appoints a Chief Executive Officer for the Boardin consultation with the Board . Also the Board is empowered by the Act to appoint such number of officers and other employees as may be necessary for performance of its functions in consultation with the State Government under section 24 of Wakf Act,1995. All the employees of the Board are deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the IndianPenal Code(45 of 1860)"

2) Now let me address this doesn't even remotely address the main point that i was making. Waqf plays no role in the administration of educational institutions.

Things matter here are:

article 29(1), 30(1), TMA Pai judgement, Art 15(5) through 93rd Amendment, RTE.

You can read about these on your own. The tl;dr of it is that, Muslims/Christians/Jains/Sikhs etc have absolute freedom to create and run schools with complete autonomy with the magical "minority status". Also, in case of Muslims/Christians/Jains/Sikhs as opposed to linguistic minorities, there is this thing called NCMEI who will automatically grant the status to a new institutions if the state does nothing on the application for the status. These institutions are run with complete autonomy on hiring/firing teachers, failing students, expelling students, some of the curriculum (that allows such human rights violations as a christian school forcing a non christian student enrolled to attend bible classes, or parading the students for political causes etc.). The schools can screen 100% of students on whatever criteria decided by the management setting whatever tuition fee. The teachers doesn't have to be SET/NET qualified. In some cases (aided schools), the funding comes from the government. These aided minority colleges are exempt from quotas (for poor, SC/ST etc) that are applicable to fully unaided Hindu run colleges.

For a Hindu run school, no screening allowed, teachers have to be SET qualified, at least 25% of the seats have to be reserved for government, students can't be expelled, and a lot more.

3) Then there are things like MSDP, hunaar haat, scholarships, subsidy for religious pilgrimages, salaries and pensions for priests and scholars and lot more that the Indian state discriminates massively on religious identity - which you ironically call "secularism".

You can't make your arguments by forever shouting right-wing after every sentence. There is no right or left wing. It's a meaningless adjective to shutdown any discussion to dehumanize the other.

There are authoritarians and religious fanatics. I argue that everyone must be treated equally irrespective of their religious believes or identity, and you want to discriminate others based on their religious identity and believes.

You are both breaking the HN guidelines egregiously. Religious and nationalistic flamewar is not welcome here, neither are personal swipes, and we don't want tedious tit-for-tat spats.

Please don't do anything like this on HN again, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Noted. I apologize. I will remove the personal remarks.

You are both breaking the HN guidelines egregiously. Religious and nationalistic flamewar is not welcome here, neither are personal swipes, and we don't want tedious tit-for-tat spats.

Please don't do anything like this on HN again, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I was discussing how secularism is defined in the indian constitution, and how it functions with respect to the related laws guaranteeing minority rights. It doesn't have anything to do with "nationalism" but was a reply to another post (by a french?) in the hopes of discussing how secularism works in India and other democratic countries.

But it was hijacked and derailed. As I have pointed out to you before, it's a tactic of the right-wing online to deliberately generate controversies on ideas they don't like and then abuse the reporting tools to get it removed if they can't browbeat the original poster.

I mention this not to pick an argument with the mods here but to make you recognize this pattern.

You were part of the hijacking and derailing. Please stop perpetuating flamewars on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. It's not what this site is for.

If other comments are egregious, flag them and/or let us know at hn@ycombinator.com and we'll take a look.

> You were part of the hijacking

I can see how one can conclude that. But I replied to a post with honest intention (it hadn't been flagged, and I assumed secularism was a "safe" topic :). But it wasn't certainly on the topic, and I'll keep that in mind from now before contributing.

It’s beautiful for the government to threaten you with jail if you wear something the government believes to be religious?

> french secularism is beautiful.

Unless you wish to wear religious articles.

Not sure if what you're talking about is French secularism, but I definitely agree with it up until the "mental illness" part. That part is where things become dangerous. Sure, churches and religions aren't special and they should follow the exact same rules as any other group of people and/or legal entity. But the moment you start mandating how people should think/what they should believe, even if their beliefs are ridiculous, you're going down one hell of a slippery slope.

In his defense, religious belief has a history of sliding down that slope at full speed in most cases when left to its own devices. I feel that religious extremism is often treated much less harshly than secularist abuses. One example of that is how various Western countries reacted to that French teacher being beheaded: they were more immediately concerned with discrimination than with the actual murder and its implications.

Definitely, but if you start treating religion as a mental illness like OP suggested, you ought to also consider flat earthers and conspiracy theorists the same. And what is the line between a conspiracy theory in the usual sense and simply a yet-unproven theory that a conspiracy actually exists? That the government is spying on us all the time might've sounded like a conspiracy theory before Snowden, so should all the people who believed it have been committed to mental hospitals? Obviously this is a slippery slope argument in and of itself, but it illustrates the possibilities for abuse.

But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it.

It's a bit circular because mental illness is societally determined. If enough people deem something to be an illness or no longer one, then so it shall tautologically be.

>But yes, religion seems to be a bit of a get-out-of-jail-free card these days - people and organizations get away with a lot of shady stuff under the disguise of religion and something really needs to be done about it.

Well that was my point: secularist impulses are often rejected, especially in the anglosphere. The people who could do something are often prevented from doing so, while religious orders are free to leave broken lives in their wake.

Laicite is stupid

France doesn't understand freedom of religion, a fundamental human right which they have pledged to uphold. Take the french school headscarf ban or the stupid outrage about the Burkini

> freedom of religion, a fundamental human right

They believe in not forcing people to follow a state religion. That’s not the same as letting people do whatever they want because “religion”.

It’s not like most religions believe in freedom of religion anyway. The same people who argue for the right to wear certain headwear belong to a religion that prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.

They do understand the concept, they just start from premises that are different from that of the anglosphere.

Perhaps freedom from religion is a fundamental human right.

Perhaps there are valid concerns that many women are being forced to cover themselves against their will, but are unable to do much about it. I havent studied this spesific issue enough to say either way, but I am not clear where your certainty is coming from.

Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. This is exactly what we don't want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Apple is in a self imposed category of only legit legal way to install software on users devices and is thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion.

The logical thing is to make Apple decide between servicing the entire American and European market and caving to repressive regimes.

>thus morally keeping users from practicing their religion

Many religions actually predate iphone apps and thus may be able to get on without them. I think Moses himself got by with basic html though I may be wrong on that.

You probably wouldn't allow Comcast to filter out all catholic content for subscribers even though the internet hadn't been thought of when the religion was founded.

So is ethically IBM criticism free for their role in the holocaust?

Are any people with a role in the holocaust still working at IBM?

Companies are not a suoernatural force, they are conposed of people.

So american companies will compromise on their own freedom, an important american value and principle, for the sake of pursuing profit in foreign countries. They'd rather obey a foreign dictator than lose their business.

Apple Google are villains because they control what and how app installs by having the app store. If it was like Windows pc it wouldn't be like this. They chose this method, in applied case a walled garden that only they can control, so must be responsible.

VPNs are a thing.

>"Would it be fair if England declared Catholics “unChristian” and banned their use if the term?"

I assume you know that happened all the time during the Reformation period with Henry the Eighth starting it, with a contrasting bit in the middle where Bloody Mary persecuted non-Catholics instead. They were bored and the internet hadn't been invented yet.

Once kings and queens weren't in charge, things got a lot more relaxed in that area.

This is why separation of religion and state is a good idea, but not all state-level entities do this for various reasons.

Anyway ... if

- a home entity is operating in a foreign realm,

- obeys the laws of the foreign realm,

- brings back money to the home realm,

- doesn't try to turn the home realm into the foreign realm.

what is the problem?

Just because a company operates in a foreign realm under their laws doesn't mean it's trying to turn its home realm into the foreign realm.

Now, if the entity is partially owned by the foreign realm ... then we can question motives, of course.

Here's some historical precedent of how that can be a problem:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Seems you have no understanding what Ahmadiyya standing for, let's clarify something first, one morning an Orange start calling herself Apple, should we start calling this Orange apple? should to Orange get offended if we still call it Apple? well we have to call the Orange Orange based on our well established understanding of the characteristics of a na orange and what makes it different, Ahmadiyya is widely considered non longer muslims amount the islamic world and islamic scholars, same fore Durouz in Lebanon for example, Ahmadiyya is against one of the main pillars of islam that prophet Mohamed is the last one but this movement founder declared himself a prophet and that god talks to him in english, this was established in 1889 during the British colonialism to India, islam consider people from other religions as infidel and it dose not seem to be an issue to christians or Jews how they are being seen by islam, and same thing goes to Christianity it dose not consider muslims as christians and I am sure muslims are happy not getting offended by not being Christians so I don't get it why this definitions are an issue while it comes to Ahmadyya, also I don't get your point of free speech while Ahmadyya are free to call themselves what they want and Muslims are also free to describe Ahmadyya the way they considered it right

Funnily enough the Ahamdis don't consider normal Muslims to be Muslims too!

Statements of Mirza Basheer-ud-Din, Ghulam Ahmad’s son and successor, including what he wrote in his book Ayena-e-Sadaaqat (p.35):

“Verily, every Muslim who does not pledge allegiance to the Promised Messiah (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad), whether he heard of his name or not, is a disbeliever and outside the fold of Islam!” He is also quoted in the Qadiani periodical, Al-Fazl (30th July 1931) as reporting from his father, Ghulam Ahmad himself that he said:

“We disagree with the Muslims in everything: concerning God, the Messenger, the Qur’aan, prayer, fasting, hajj and zakaah. There is a fundamental difference of opinion between us in all of these things!”

https://www.masjidattaqwa.co.nz/ahmadiyya/

Like Jinnah, Mirza Basheer said a lot of things at one time and a lot of diametrically opposite things at another. Punishing people who aren't dead for something someone who is dead said is a bad idea, so is predicating citizenship rights. Do you think I asked for who my parents were? Do you think it's fair they couldn't even register their marriage in Pak and could only give Nikahnama to American embassy on the way out?

The point was aimed at the classification of Ahamdis as not being Muslim and how the founder and main leaders of the Ahmadiyya even seen their movement as radically different to mainstream Islam. I haven't seen any statements of them opposing these views.

Regardless, I wasn't advocating or defending their persecution.

You might want to check out the 1974 assembly hearings where the successor of the guy you cited has a bit about “political Muslims”

Are you talking about the below National Assembly where it couldn't be decided by him whether mainstream Muslims are Kaafir according to the widely published statements of the founder?

https://ahmadiyyafactcheckblog.com/2017/12/22/mirza-nasir-ah...

Yeah, I'm not defending his performance. I think he said something about 'political Kaafir'

I keep thinking about infamous Telegram 'war' with russian cenrosship agency, RosKomNadzor. Telegram was blocked via russian ISPs, but was never removed from Russian sections of Google Play and Apple Appstore.

We now see that Apple and Google, time after time, easily submit to the will of local governments and remove questionable apps. Yet, Telegram was NOT removed. Russian media agencies claim that RosKomNadzor asked Google&Apple to suspend the app, but the source for all media publications was always the same press-release by RKN. So it keeps me thinking: what if the world was played and all this 'blocking' scandal was just a publicity stunt to raise Telegram's profile as a service that does not give up data to authorities?

Does anyone know if we can confirm via Google & Apple that they were asked to remove Telegram from play stores (and refused), or... they weren't really asked at all?

This is an interesting point of view...

Pakistan's laws are clearly wrong, but Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws.

Indeed, you cannot solve political problems with technical solutions -- It goes both ways though

I don't think FAANGM having control is a technical solution -- it's a political solution too, albeit with a (semi-) public company in the position of power.

So may I ask your opinion of this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

I'm not sure exactly what the correct set of actions for Apple is in the Pakistan case, but I don't feel these two are all that similar.

In that case Apple broke no laws. The FBI very likely did not have the legal power to compel Apple to break the phone’s encryption. The FBI issued orders to Apple, Apple legally disputed the orders. Apple's actions in disputing unjust orders is allowed under US law.

Versus this case where the Pakistani government does, unfortunately, have full authority to pass and enforce this law as harshly as it wants.

In the US, the law is not whatever the FBI says it is.

Providing tools (strong encryption) isn't really the same as managing a whole market and dictating who can and cannot participate based on random whims.

If they were giving the FBI backdoors but not the UK or Pakistan, then it would be a different story.

Apple disputed an order in court and won lawfully? Seems consistent.

Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be?

The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations, in order to continue operating within a given country. Note that I am not saying the action itself is a human rights violation. They certainly have the right to choose what to publish and they are limiting the scope of their actions to the laws of the country question. The decision is entirely reasonable if the context of those laws is ignored. The decision is also entirely reasonable when you consider that Apple and Google are large enough entities that not operating within that country or doing so in violation of their laws could rightfully be considered as exerting political pressure.

I doubt that there is actually a good answer to the question. There is only a lesser-of-evils answer, where they probably made the right choice even though I find their profiting from that choice disgusting.

> Agreed, but this also raises the question: what should their course of action be?

To comply with the law.

No, I don't like it either, but I also don't like the idea of corporations having the ability to flout the laws of sovereign nations because they disagree with them.

> The course of action they followed implicitly supports human rights violations

This is not a "course of action" anymore than not committing a crime is a public service. Enforcing human rights laws is not Apple or Google's job, full stop. They are corporations who's goal is to make money, and that's it. Enforcing human rights is what Governments are for.

Instead of asking "why aren't Apple and Google helping activists in Pakistan?" ask "why is Pakistan allowed to abuse it's citizenry in 2021?"

The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to profit from the decision. The only way I can see the situation being avoided is by not entering the particular market in the first place, or by not allowing corporations to get so large that their actions can be construed as political interference (whether it is intentional or not). Either way, the current decision is the consequence of earlier ones.

> The main issue is how Apple and Google are able to profit from the decision

I mean, they're going to do that anyway. They will enter all markets they are able to, and profit as much as they can. That's the entire point of their existence: generate value for shareholders.

I'm not saying I disagree that this situation should be avoided, and in fact super agree with you saying that this moment in history is a consequence of earlier ones more than anything else. However, there's a reflexive action where people are like "$corporation needs to make more ethical decisions" and I cannot overemphasize how ridiculous this view is. Corporations are not even unethical, they're aethical. Their decision making is entirely focused on maximum profit generation.

Now occasionally they'll do something ethical, but oftentimes this is solely because the negative PR from doing something else, or doing nothing, would cause too much damage to the bottom line, however relying solely on this mechanism to illicit change in said corporations is optimistic at best. Instead, legislate what must happen. If you don't want corporations to use child labor to mine minerals, then make that practice incredibly illegal, and make sure the costs to do it anyway are sky high compared to the ones to not. And do it with law, not protest.

> They certainly have the right to choose what to publish

No, they really don't. If they 'chose' to publish an app that is banned by Pakistan, the ultimate end-move would be for Pakistan to simply disable the app stores completely.

Nah. The Pakistan's ruling class would not want their phones not to function because it may rule over a country with goat herders that pray multiple times a day, but it lives like the top 1% of the West.

If Google or Apple wanted to squeeze Pakistan or any other country such that they would simply stop providing any services there or to any phone that has been located in Pakistan at any point. Within weeks, the app stores would be restored.

Easy solution is to not have monolithic gatekeepers like Apple or Google that can be pressured into doing stuff like this. A website is way harder to shut down than an appstore app, so normalizing appstores is a huge problem.

A country's law can be bypassed by not doing business there, an option that Google is already familiar from its 2010 decision regarding China. Pakistan is a large country, but I don't think it is a big market for Google - certainly much smaller than China.

Also, I found it disingenuous that Google plays "it's the law card" when it spends millions of dollars a year lobbying in the United States to get laws changed. Now, it may be much harder to get the Pakistan government to change its mind around the inclusion of "Muslim" for online content for this group - but I doubt Google has bothered to try...

There is more than a country's law to consider, there is international law and war crimes tribunals. Nothing maybe for Google to worry about yet, but what if Pakistan passes a law is passed that requires Google to give up all search data on this minority population in order that the government can monitor, imprison or kill them? I'd like to see how Google's legal team would respond to that. I'm guessing comply and cover-up, but I'd like to be wrong.

Note it doesn't even have to be an international law, it can be a better, future Pakistan, perhaps one with an Ahmadiyya leader - as inconceivable as that seems now. Germany for example, is charging an old lady with aiding and abetting murder (10,000 times!) for her secretarial work as a minor in a concentration camp. Pakistan is bigger than Germany and Google is good at doing things at scale... so let's hope Google leadership leads.

That’s literally the opposite of what bypassing means

I would argue that Google, Apple, and any other group or individual should have the choice to ignore laws. When immoral laws are flaunted to promote the common good, it's called civil disobedience. Likewise, governments are free to investigate and punish those people. Also likewise, the population is free to form their own opinions about the "criminals" and government.

That's society. We shouldn't throw our hands in the air and blindly follow all laws just because there's no objective truth.

No. but the citizens should be able to bypass unjust laws and Apple and Google have no business preventing that.

> Apple and Google do not and should not have the authority to bypass any country's laws

They do every day when it's in their interest...

Of course I disagree with religious or any other intolerance, but, if you want to do business in Pakistan, you have to follow their rules.

It isn't a case of 'caving to pressure', but of 'complying with the law', since the apps are available in other countries, just not in Pakistan, where they are deemed blasphemous, according to their laws.

There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.

But Google leaving hasn’t improved the civil rights situation in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond the scope of Googles.

Yes, but Google are not cooperating in that. If you are witnessing a crime that you cannot stop, does it mean that if the criminal gives you a thousand or even a million dollars, you will help them because the crime will happen anyway?

When you make a moral call, do you not forecast a fork in the road where you might choose the morally superior destiny? Or does one merely move moral words without the corresponding conviction to move moral results?

Lots of "moral" in your comment and it crowds the meaning for me.

If you are accusing me that I'm preaching and not following my own words, that is a big assumption on your side.

> 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.

This is what I'm accusing you of. How has Chinese affairs changed for the better after Google?

Not OP. But are you telling since Google's course of action didn't had any impact of altering actions of Chinese government, they (Google) should have stayed put.

If you see a man being killed, would you go to the killer and say: "This guy is already dead and nobody can prosecute you because there are no sheriff in the county, but if you pay me, I'll help you with your laundry."? Because the question is not if Google can transform CCP, but if it would take part in its crimes. Unfortunately, there is no God or well-supplied jewish conspiracy that sits above us, knows everything, and can deliver direct consequences for our actions. So, we have a choice to make: to act in our direct interest or act against it and bet on a vague conjecture that a collective sacrifice will deliver a better future for everyone. So, asking if the choice of one changes anything is the wrong question in this case.

Of course, all things above are not simple. There is the prisoners dilema "if not me, then someone else will do it", and "if it is me, I can prevent even worse from happening", but there is also the "slippery slope" where making small concessions leads to more and more concessions. So, everyone make there choices and we all leave with the consequences.

I'm going to disagree with you there. Have civil rights in China improved or worsened? Could they be even worse if Google hadn't left.

You're right that this is beyond the scope of Google in the same way that it's beyond the scope of any individual. But together humans can slowly influence other humans and doing the right thing might be a tiny influence but eventually these might add up.

We don't know if Google's actions did make them a tiny bit less bad or not

It's always worth remembering: Google couched leaving China in 2010 in humanitarian / ethical terms, but the reason they left was extremely clear: they got hacked internally by Chinese agents using physical access to the intranet. While Google got their security house in order, the most prudent course of action to protect their own company (including their employees) was to cut that physical access.

Google restarted business in China around the same time it was able to bring the BeyondCorp initiative online.

Perhaps is more companies refused to do business in a country due to diabolical laws, people would start voting against politicians that create diabolical laws.

So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not going all the way down and let those companies write beautiful laws and also enforce them, everywhere in the world?

>So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable?

Why not? They, like anyone else traveling or doing business internationally, should decide which countries should be avoided. They can use whatever opinions or judgements they want. It is possible for a huge international corporation to have some sway on a country by not doing business there. But that's not always a bad thing. I'm more afraid of bad governments never suffering from bad decisions than this slippery slope.

> So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable?

Why not? If they can decide which speech is tolerated on their platforms and which isn't, then why not this?

They're private companies. They're free to decide which countries to serve in. That is very different from dictating the laws in the countries. In one case, they're sacrificing profits for company values. In the other case, they're forcing others to follow their laws. I honestly wouldn't care if a conservative Christian software company decided not to do business in California because they thought the state had immoral laws. That doesn't mean they're forcing their laws on us.

I think if a law goes against your company values, such as egrariously stomping on human rights, you should have a principle and a backbone and not sacrifice those value to make money.

I agree that Google needs to follow the law where they operate. I do think they should have challenged the demand in court, however. That would show that they at least tried to stand up for their app developers.

Sure, but if the users could side load applications then even if the government would demand the giants to remove X app or book the user could find a way. People were listening to forbidden radio stations in secret and this was possible because DRM did not exist on the radio and TV equipment.

Google allowed side loading these apps, right? At least for now?

Yes, Android allows side loading but in fact it depends on the company that makes the device. Apple makes the OS and the only iOS devices so they control everything.

I'm worried about the future of computing devices. With Apple and Google going with the walled garden approach, What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal?

> What's to stop any government from telling Apple and Google that an app is illegal?

Nothing; that's most of the idea of a government.

It would seem to me that in the case of apps they’re telling us what information is legal. That isn’t most of the idea of government for people.

That’s why we need good government.

Nothing to stop any government. This has already happened in a few countries, especially with banning apps of a certain kind or apps from certain countries.

By definition, in most places, govts have a monopoly on physical violence (i.e. : they have the most guns).

So, to answer your question that starts with "What's to stop any government", the answer is : nothing.

Governments have mostly failed to stop websites. Moving from websites to appstore apps gives governments more power. It also gives giant corporations more power. So it is a bad development if you fear giant corporations or governments.

Governments have successfully stopped websites. The CCP has practically created their own internet, and it's obvious that the total absence of the Play Store in China hasn't changed this at all. Australia has enacted national bans on a number of piracy-related websites that their ISPs enforce. If anything, it's easier to circumvent a store ban by sideloading an APK than it is to find/setup reliable VPNs and various traffic obfuscation tools.

The government is the sole decider of what's "illegal".

To get an idea how rampant Islamism is in Pakistan when it comes to Ahmadis, read this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-politics-idUSKCN...

Pakistan will literally sacrifice its economy for the sake of keeping Mullahs happy. It's sad and despicable.

You speak as if the same isn't in effect everywhere else. Sure the example here is more stark, but look at the sacrifice of environment and warmongering the US does for the oil industry, or look at any number of moves China makes to benefit members of CCP party members over it's populace.

It is sad and despicable and entirely human nature.

We have been seeing deplatforming happen more and more these last few months. Seems like this is going to accelerate a decentralized Internet.

It's going to be exciting times with a lot of societal questions and problems to be answered as these new technologies take off and the old model of advertising and free services for personal data get replaced with a new model.

Pakistan's attitude towards Ahmadiyya is trash. It's ridiculous to me as a Pakistani that a country born to counter the persecution of minorities should so blatantly persecute them itself. I genuinely cannot process the hypocrisy.

The Ahmadiyya movement is seen also as a cult. As someone who resisted the idea of discrimination for some random accusatory beliefs, I later realized the group does not reciprocate non discrimination but discriminates even harder.

Some of this can be understood. Because intra support is a characteristic along minorities. But the level is not just support but also active hate and cult like behavior.

You're not wrong, but tightening the screws on them (Ahmedis) is only going to make them burrow further in. Does anything in Khatm-e-Nubuwwat and the like's behavior seem to you like on average they're interested in conversion?

People say the same about Muslims in general in the west and we get pretty outraged. Why don't we get outraged when Muslims do the same to their minorities?

While I agree that banning religious apps is particularly objectionable, it's interesting to compare the response to Pakistan banning US apps and India banning Chinese apps.

What do you mean by the term "banning religious apps"? Specifically, what does the term religious app mean to you?

While I won't draw my exact lines, an annotated version of the Qur'an for your sect pretty clearly should be allowed.

What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that?

What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples?

I'm curious if you can draw the lines on those or if that's harder to say "this is clearly allowed".

>What if someone made a bible that claimed Jesus was not the son of god, but just a man. I assume you would be ok with that?

Like the Qur'an? No problems bud.

>What if someone makes a bible that says Jesus was engaged in a homosexual relationship with his disciples?

If I actually thought their religion truly believed that, absolutely a-ok. If they were doing it to be assholes, I'd still have no problems with it but I understand why there would be some people very upset and wish they would voluntarily stop.

That's also how I view depictions of Muhammad, if apps involving that were what Pakistan banned I'd see every party involved as objectionable. Here there's a clear victim.

Ahh so now what about banning child pedophilia in holy books? How do you feel about religions texts the promote that particular viewpoint?

Like cults? Claiming religious authority to abuse someone is a crime basically everywhere.

If you're trying to refer to Muhammad, calling a few lines about a political marriage not contained in the Qur'an "promoting that viewpoint" is assholish behavior.

If there's some other target or just a hypothetical, it would depend on how the religion viewed the section today.

You are really about to start splitting hairs here I feel, but let's do this.

If a religion today promoted that a 50 year old can marry a 9 year old, would you ban it or not?

If a religion today claimed that the rapist of a woman who was single was forced to marry said woman, would you ban it or not?

>You are really about to start splitting hairs here I feel, but let's do this.

Despite your attempts to provoke me, my answer to every question has been "it's fine" except for the clear cut case of abuse. Now you're continuing towards what I view as islamophobia even after my warning. I really don't understand what you're hoping for here.

Child abuse, rape, and forced marriage are all things that should be illegal. Claiming a law is wrong shouldn't be illegal, but if the church was actively pushing their members to commit crimes they would likely be accessories. At no point would I ban a religion.

It's not an attempt to provoke. I'm not sure why you think that.

But you bring up a great point again. Define religion? I take it Satanism is a religion to you yes?

>I'm not sure why you think that.

Because this started with your objection to me saying religious persecution is wrong, and within three posts you had called Jesus gay and Muhammad a pedophile just to see what kind of reaction I gave. If you disagree, explain what you're hoping to get out of this interaction.

What if a person sincerely believes Jesus was gay, and that Muhamad was a pedophile? Were do you draw the line at sincerely held religious beliefs and what you think is not a sincere religious belief?

Why do you care so much about what other people believe? It's like you are trying to justify religious persecution.

Why do I care if delusional people get help? For the same reason I'm in support of universal healthcare as a human right. Again, if you want to claim something like religious persecution, can you define what it means. I would love a clear and concise definition of what is and isn't a religion.

As a side note that many readers might find interesting, delusion as defined in the DSM-5, the book that defines what is and isn't a "mental illness", EXPLICTLY makes an exception for "religious beliefs" when it comes to delusions. I.E., if you believe in Zeus and Thor and claim you pray and worship them, you can can be admitted for delusion because those "religions" aren't considered socio-normal, I.E. no big groups of people actively practice them. It's kind of the idea why cults are considered delusions. Now, you take that same exact logic, but apply it to someone who claims they talk to Jesus or Allah, bam, exemption and it's perfectly normal delusions.

My simple definition is "harmful actions are bad, not beliefs." What is or isn't religion isn't very important.

I wish people didn't hold beliefs I find nonsensical, but they likely feel the same way and any action I try to force on them will not improve anything. It's unfortunate that many are fine forcing things on me, but that doesn't mean I should adopt the practice.

>DSM-5

DSM-IV, it was changed in DSM-V.

Beliefs can lead to harmful actions though, that is why people can be locked up for "delusions" or "beliefs that can lead to harmful actions" in the first place. Your definition doesn't really address the idea that ideas can be harmful and that we do actually disallow certain beliefs in society.

As for your definition of religion, I think it is entirely relevant, as you suggest my ideas on redefining Christianity to include a gay Jesus is offensive to religion. Well, if you are going to claim that, I would challenge why this religious belief is less sacred than the traditional view of Jesus according to Christianity. How do you define religion is definitely relevant.

As for the last comment of it being DSM-V, what does that matter when referring to it as DSM-5? As far as I can tell, it is not a meaningful distinction. Do you disagree with the idea that religion has a specific exception in the current DSM when concerning religion?

I don't think certain beliefs should be disallowed. I've never heard of a person being arrested just for having a delusion, it may be possible.

>gay Jesus is offensive to religion

No, its intentionally trying to be offensive to the person you are talking to. Any example of a theological difference works for your argument, yet you kept returning to ones I said we're offensive.

The definition you provided was in the DSM-4, the one in 5 is different. I have no opinion on diagnosing delusions.

Arrested or committed are a very thing line apart. More so when you realize that what is defined to be a delusion versus a religious belief is arbitrary in nature. I think you realize this since you dodge the issue of defining exactly what religion is in the first place as "not relevant".

As for the DSM 4 versus DSM 5, please, if the distinction of which document we are using to define delusion has changed, do you mind explain your rational for why the DSM 4 has an explicit exception for religion concerning delusion when compared to how the DSM redefines it?

I took the term "lock up" to mean arrest. People don't get committed just for having a delusion either, which is why I don't need an specific definition of religion. I don't need to label other people's beliefs.

I was just fixing your mistake on the DSM part, but if I'm honest the religion exception was probably to prevent assholes from using it to label anyone religious crazy, and the new one makes it more clear harm is necessary.

Yet you use a word to label people's belief like religion as somehow protected. I'm not the one giving it a label. You are. I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by the label you use which is the label of religion.

And harm isn't necessary in the DSM 5. Where are you pulling that idea from? Which part of the wording specifically? I'm referring to delusion disorder.

Again, I think no beliefs should be persecuted. What I call a religion is based on casual observation and deserves no additional protection, but it's broadly someone's metaphysical beliefs.

All i said was banning an app based on intolerance of a belief is more objectionable than going after an app out of geopolitical rivalry.

Every classification describes harmful delusions, and the symptoms are about ways it negatively impacts your life.

The Nazis had metaphysical beliefs. Do you think they were persecuted? What about children who have no choice in what beliefs are hoisted upon them?

As for religion and beliefs, is it possible to have beliefs without religion, or religion without beliefs? Can you ban one and not the other?

And banning for intolerance of a belief is exactly what happened to parler and Trump in the US. Are you against that as well even though it directly lead to an assault at the capitol?

Do you think religion or beliefs can have negative impacts on a life?

Reaching Godwin's law is a pretty good sign this is over.

Everyone has unreligious beliefs, but my rough definition of religion requires beliefs. You could make a law banning religious beliefs, but enforcement would be a shitshow.

Beliefs can be a negative thing for your life, and they can lead you to things like insurrection. Banning them will not stop this, and will cause additional damage to society.

Why would it be a shit show? And I wouldn't necessarily ban it, just make sure it is acknowledged as a delusion. If you really believe I need to take seriously someone who claims a human being can walk on water, you might need to have your own head checked for malfunction. Beliefs don't live in a vacuum, and everyday experiences should absolutely guide you to beliefs that are not outright rejections of reality.

Just another reason why you don't want companies like Apple and Google to be the gatekeepers. Technology can set you free, but only if you let it. If you don't, it can easily become a new tool of oppression.

The gatekeeper is Pakistan, it's their sovereign territory. The Internet isn't outside of that reach, it only exists inside of a territory with the permission of the government that controls it.

You might as well be talking about any of a zillion laws within 195 different countries that one might find objectionable, it's exactly the same 'problem.'

What's the premise? Pakistan doesn't get to decide their own laws? That's identical to saying that Pakistan shouldn't get to decide how networks operate in their territory.

And if we're going there, no nations in Europe should be allowed to determine their own speech laws or restrictions because I largely disagree with them, and they also shouldn't be allowed to control or restrict any networks that operate within their borders under any circumstances, and that includes barring them from limiting any content for any reason. Fun game.

Perhaps making it easy to deplatform people at the behest of a central authority is not a good idea? I would rather not be able to deplatform Donald Trump and not have Pakistan chase my friends in the Ahmadiyya community off the internet than accept both of those outcomes

I never said it was a good idea. I said Pakistan's territory is their sovereign land, and they get to decide how things work within that territory accordingly. Whether anyone likes it or not.

There are a lot of really bad nations and a lot of really, really bad laws out there. What's the plan for all of that? Because the Internet is a tiny little fraction of that problem and it's tied up in the fact that people outside of a nation generally don't get to dictate what happens inside of that nations, that goes for trade / culture / laws / religion / et al.

Is the problem Pakistan's culture? Government? Religion? What's the plan for dealing with the first order problem there, given the restrictions on the Internet are distant down the line from that. Bar Pakistan from dictating their own culture? Invade Pakistan and re-orient their government?

I don't expect anyone will dare to go anywhere near any of this intellectually. The easy thing is to just say: but Pakistan shouldn't do a thing regarding the Internet. Cool, now what? You've said it, now what do you plan to do about the way the nation of Pakistan operates, because that's actually the central matter here. They are de facto the gatekeeper for the Internet within their sovereign territory, period. See: China and how they operate the Internet within their territory. Would anyone confuse whether China is the gatekeeper there? Of course not.

An extension of all of this is: companies and individuals should never trade with bad nations, because they have to comply with local laws to do so typically (and that can facilitate oppression and tyranny in such nations). That's identical to Google & Co. complying with what Pakistan tells them to, in order to operate within Pakistan's sovereign territory. So, what's a bad nation? Which ones go on the list? What kind of trade is acceptable? Who decides that? More fun.

If internet services in general were less centralised, Pakistan's sovereign power would remain unchanged but its ability to wield that power against its citizens might be reduced. Pakistan might be able to get you kicked off the App Store but I doubt it can get you kicked off F-Droid

Of course, a nation state that's truly committed to the warpath can always escalate and ban more stuff, but that's a costly activity and there's a lot of friction associated with doing so

Pakistan only gets to decide what they can practically influence. Apple and Google could design their phones in a way where it’s not possible for Pakistan to wholesale prevent people from using a piece of software.

At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan.

This attitude pervades tech-inclined folk's discussions of politics, as if the Internet is somehow above the laws and culture of the places where it operates, especially with regard to the global south. Just because you either don't comprehend or don't respect a given culture enough to learn about it, doesn't mean it no longer applies to you.

I of course disagree with what's happening here, but nothing Pakistan is doing here is illegal or surprising.

Not available for purchase != not available.

I understand the point you're trying to make: technologists undervalue national sovereignty when it's from a non-Western / less-democratic country.

But try to appreciate parent's point as well: that there are technical qualities about the internet that make it censorship-resistant.

I don't think that point resonates nearly as well under a less-democratic country. There's a romanticism that's applied to the Internet as though it can buck any trend or speak truth to power in a way that other prior media hasn't or can't, and there is some truth to that? But that wasn't because of some innate superiority; it was because it developed primarily in the West, where freedom to express oneself is the default, with authorities only really stepping in when needed. This ethos has followed through the Internet's spread to other parts of the world, where this is not always the case, and the reaction in general from companies especially borders on pearl clutching. "What do you mean we have to respect unjust laws and the arbitrary decisions of some banana republic?"

Yes, you do. Because within the borders of that republic, regardless of how banana it might be, it is the Government and it has power. I feel like this is the penultimate expression of privilege for Westerners, to find out that the madman running around in tanks and aviator sunglasses in that part of the world, you know, over there, actually does have direct and indisputable power over MILLIONS of people and in all likelihood, is probably killing tons of them. Like, we know that, but we don't understand what that means, not really. How could we? I find it hard to conceive of something further from my reality.

And ultimately, for all the legitimate strengths the Internet has to fulfill the dream of these folks, in terms of speaking truth to power, ultimately, Governments can turn it off if needed, as we've seen, if it becomes too much of a problem.

I think we're talking about two different things here: companies and code.

You're absolutely right in that companies, as legal entities, have to obey laws in whatever jurisdiction they operate.

But the "internet routes around censorship" folks are usually talking about company-less code (or information), in its pure sense.

That is effectively influenced by only two variables: the cost of copying and distributing it.

Digital technology has driven that number far lower than it's historically existed. And in that, it's a fundamental change.

To cast into concrete terms, we're talking about Facebook (company example) vs DeCSS (code).

Facebook cares if Pakistan or the US says something must be so. DeCSS doesn't.

> But the "internet routes around censorship" folks are usually talking about company-less code (or information), in its pure sense.

Is it company-less, though? Code is useless without the silicon that brings it to life, without the people that maintain that silicon, without the power grid that energizes it, and without the data links that connect it. Like I understand what you're saying, you're saying that the pure technology itself is the liberating part, and I agree with that about halfway. But code doesn't run on nothing. To run your code, you'll need a computer, either in your home or business. That computer is sold to you by a vendor, and it's connected to internet sold to you by a different vendor, and is powered by electricity sold to you by a different vendor. Ergo, your code is dependent upon the infrastructure to which you are in turn beholden to. And none of this changes if you use AWS or whatever, you're just adding more vendors and more middlemen, who in turn are buying the needed things from whomever else, etc. Ultimately, if whatever authority decides you must not proceed with what you're doing, that can be enforced in numerous ways, all of which mean that you will not proceed. Or at the very least, will make it much harder.

We saw this recently with the Parler fiasco.

> To cast into concrete terms, we're talking about Facebook (company example) vs DeCSS (code).

But DeCSS only works with DVD drives sold to you by manufacturers in PC's sold to you by manufacturers, running on electricity sold to you by a utility. The code, the information, that's free. But taking it and doing something useful with it, in this case decrypting DVD's, requires hardware, and if for whatever odd reason the U.S. State Department decided that nobody was ever going to use it in the States again, maybe they couldn't stop it entirely, sure, but they can make it infinitely more difficult to do so.

That's drawing a lot of absolutes from a lot of very qualified facts.

Given the current state of technology, and the diversity of vendors at every level, there is no way any country could impinge on an individual's ability to access general purpose computing.

For example, that the US has the power to ban optical disk drives that don't scan for and prohibit certain contents? Ha!

Among the ridiculous points this is not reality, in no particular order. (A) General purpose computing would have to be banned. (B) This hasn't even broached the topic of content encryption. (C) The level of control over imports would have to be completely overhauled to something approaching North Korea. (D) Domestic manufacturers would have to be banned from producing programmable processors.

This is literally not the world we live in. Even in China.

It's not a game of qualified answers. If (1) I have a general purpose computer & (2) I have code that can accomplish the intended activity on that general purpose computer, then (3) no one can stop me from executing that code.

The closest example is metadata tracking artifacts in printer documents [0], and previous efforts to technically prohibit currency counterfeiting on then-new color printers.

But that's fundamentally different than what we're talking about here: there are a limited number of manufacturers, in a low margin business, that's highly specialized.

[0] https://www.eff.org/issues/printers

I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship).

A company like Google might not have the power to say no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to have considerable heft against a nation that can't credibly mount a replacement for something like Google. Laws aren't absolute - like all other human institutions, they're subject to pressure. Put enough pressure on and they can switch from something being forbidden to being allowed. (In the past, corporate pressure has been "up to and including outright overthrow of a government", in the case of what was done to the Honduras on behalf of the United Fruit Company, so ... some options are off the table because they're immoral, but corporate pressure don't have any hard ceiling on what it can theoretically accomplish.)

> I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship).

And my point isn't to denigrate those efforts as they are, merely to point out that the fact you're permitted to engage in those efforts is contingent on those efforts remaining ineffective. Those in power will never concede power to those without peacefully, this is a lesson history teaches us all the way back to the city state of Ur. If you ever were to engage in efforts that caused legitimate destabilization of the power structures above you, those efforts would be put down. Probably legally, possibly violently, but they will be put down.

The fact that some Governments are quicker to pull the metaphorical triggers, doesn't mean the others are therefore not armed.

> A company like Google might not have the power to say no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to have considerable heft against a nation that can't credibly mount a replacement for something like Google.

This presumes the Government in question sees value in a thing it is trying to actively remove. Like I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think it's a major concern of Pakistan's leadership that their people have ready access to Stadia and Chrome? Or the search engine itself, for that matter?

> At which point said phone is no longer available for purchase in Pakistan.

This isn't really supported by how other similar devices are treated.

We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level censorship functionality inserted into it, as the behest of governments.

The idea that a country would stop all phones from being purchased, if phones simply worked similarly to PCs, sounds about as unlikely as a country blocking the purchase of "unlocked" PCs, which we see is not currently happening.

> We aren't seeing all PCs having hardware level censorship functionality inserted into it, as the behest of governments.

I mean, that literally did almost happen once, right here in the US of A. And sure, points to you, no country has yet attempted it since then, but also, China has locked onto a much more productive and efficient model; controlling the flow of information itself, rather than the client devices at hand.

And yeah, that's circumvent-able by users of sufficient tech literacy and bravery, but also, that fact has not presented an issue yet for China's Communist Party in their efforts to keep a stranglehold on the culture of their country, apart from perhaps Hong Kong.

> controlling the flow of information itself, rather than the client devices at hand.

It is still significantly harder to enact censorship on a wide scale as china is trying to do, than it is to simply change 2 app stores.

The stuff that china is doing, is much more difficult. It uses a lot of resources, and is not perfect.

I would rather more barriers be put up, so as to make censorship more difficult, wherever possible.

And making phones more open is another such barrier, that makes censorship more difficult.

Rights are not binary. Oppression and censorship is a spectrum, and taking actions against such oppression makes the oppression less effective, even if some oppression still happens.

AWS and GCP could start by allowing domain fronting again.

That would be nice if phones were open and free, but they aren't. For many, especially in developing nations, the phone is the way to access the internet. If Google/Apple wouldn't have such a stranglehold on the world of mobile phones, people would be free to choose which app repo they use or which apps they sideload. But sadly, they are not.

Andriod is open in the sense that you can sideload apps independently of the play store, you just have to enable it.

So in such countries the movements with banned apps should post step by step guides for their followers of how they can enable sideloading and install the banned app.

On iPhone you have to root your phone for sideloading, so that is a closed system for the average user, but on Android there is an option for that, so no rooting is required:

https://www.howtogeek.com/313433/how-to-sideload-apps-on-and...

How would they be free? A country like Pakistan could just as easily block any service that provides content they deem illegal ( as is the case here) via the ISPs( SNI sniffing, DNS blocking, IP blocking) that can't disagree.

If anything, Google and Apple have more leverage than F-Droid or similar because Pakistan can't block them without significant backlash, and needs their cooperation, which is at least debated ( point in case, the article says a few of the apps weren't blocked by Google).

And furthermore, anyone can install any apk or app store serving apks on Android devices.

Right now Pakistan is able to block any service they deem as illegal by getting Google and Apple to block it. They have two gates they need to close.

If users could load any apps they want outside of the google and apple stores there would be many gates that countries like Pakistan would need to close. Not only more gates but new gates opening every day. Basically, it would be the old internet model, which is very difficult to control.

On Android it is relatively trivial to install applications from outside the Google Play Store.

True, but with a catch.

If your app requires some sort of background functionality (it is a messenger, or anything) you would have to run through some ugly hoops to keep it running, or you have to rely on push notifications. And push notifications are not available for sideloaded apps.

Yeah I agree with you that the sovereignty of people should be respected. But shouldnt we draw some line?

Say Israel makes a law that Arab citizens should be tracked through a digital symbol to identify that they are of the non-Jewish subset of the population — should US companies comply? And I specifically choose Israel because it has a history of discrimination against its Arab population.

If the pattern tells you anything, US companies will comply.

The major notable case of non compliance has been Google not entering China, which I argue has been more to do with internal activism than the company's preferences. Would also say that it is harder to leave a country once you're in it than not entering in the first place, so I think Google might not have left China if that were the case.

Apple happily conducts business in China and I am absolutely certain allows backdoor access to the Chinese Government. Arguably, the US getting backdoor access is almost as bad so we should already be up in arms about this, but I don't see a protest anywhere.

Hope the new privacy and decentralization wave makes it very hard to spy on people.

I'll say it here again:

There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime.

Even the definition of basic human rights is disputed. Just check the topics of abortion, access to internet, property, religious freedoms, sexual orientation. In some countries some of those are defined as basic human rights, in others some are outright banned.

Yes, and those countries are places that people usually look for how to leave.

Basic human rights are not 'access to internet", they are things like 'not being tortured' which are generally accepted from US to mongolia.

Sure its fuzzy around the edges but like the pamous supreme court case with porn: "i know it when i see it"

Totally right. Remember that capital doesn't have a nation. Companies registered in the US have to comply with US laws.

But a legal entity in Pakistan have to obide by those rules. And if it's profitable - they will.

Replace Pakistan with any other country name, the argument doesn't change. It's the law in that jurisdiction.

You can't really mix and match the legislation you like and don't like.

No idea if the particular law is just, but that's not the question. The question is - is it profitable to abide by it?

So much for: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

[1] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore

Ask Parler how well that works in the new era of FAANG dominance.

That quote was from a different era where the internet was seen as a bringer of free information and hope, unfortunately.

This is not a very god argument and it that can be used to justify the worst possible actions including genocide.

The 'problem' here - is that outside actors are forced to become 'complicit' with all sorts of laws that are potentially an objectively 'bad'.

By removing app restrictions by Apple and Google - we remove the complicity, making the issue squarely one of Pakistani authoritarianism.

With Google, at least there are ways to install apps without their app store, with Apple, obviously not.

Yes, we keep saying this. But the alternative is right in front of us... it is the open Web and related technologies.

If someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple.

Wordpress powers 40% of all such websites. But for Web 2.0 where are the open source alternatives? Discourse? We need something that can handle chatrooms, videoconferencing and more, and can be hosted anywhere.

All around the world, we need such web based tools.

> someone was hosting a website outside of Pakistan, it would be much harder to take down than just petitioning Google or Apple

ISPs are still in Pakistan, so if the country wants, there are a myriad of ways to block a website. Most are preventable, but for the majority of people the site will be effectively blocked.

Okay so replace DNS with DHT, and have people use Tor or Beaker browsers with Dat or MaidSAFE

Sigh

The problem here lies with Pakistan, not Apple and Google.

An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them. The most Apple and Google can do is leave the market. There's an argument for that, but that doesn't make those apps available in Pakistan, and, more importantly, doesn't end the oppression of Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan.

There are arguments against gatekeeping tech companies, but this isn't one of them.

The problem lies with Pakistan and Apple and Google. If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store blocking them would be much harder. The entity creating the apps does not seem to have a commercial presence in Pakistan and the Pakistani government would have no jurisdiction over their actions. Having large commercial intermediaries with money on the line is really convenient when you want to get something censored.

From the article:

> The PTA also ordered shut a US-based Ahmadi site, TrueIslam.com, threatening its administrators with criminal charges that carry a $3 million fine. The decision may not be enforceable, since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan.

You're suggesting that if Apple and Google create an app-loading mechanism that makes it difficult for them to block an app, that Pakistan will simply let them off the hook.

I don't think so. Why wouldn't Pakistan simply require them to block it anyway?

> ...since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan

Not relevant. In this case, Apple and Google do business in Pakistan. You can argue they need to leave the market. If so, let's hear it. (Personally, I don't think that would have an impact or be the right way to go even if it did.)

I'm suggesting that Apple and Google should not be in position to decide what users run on their apps. On Android, it is rather close to it (sans push notifications, which are not available without Google Play services, and without which background apps running is somewhat problematic), but Apple is a completely opposite.

Not sure you're understanding what I'm saying.

The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so.

I don't dispute that Apple and Google do gatekeeping. They do. We can discuss the pros and cons of it. But that is simply not issue here.

> The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so.

In general, we do not see governments doing this, no.

For example, I am sure that some people in Pakistan own intel/windows computers.

But Pakistan is not making laws that require every single intel/windows computer to block certain content, at the hardware level of the PC.

That is something that seems pretty difficult to enforce on all PCs.

If phones worked more like PCs, then it is likely that they would enjoy similar benefits.

It would be fun to watch someone calmly and rationally explain this impossibility to the legislator. Perhaps with slides about Turing’s universal machine and the x86 architecture. And while you have their ear, maybe convince them that end to end encryption can’t be safely backdoored, and that cellphone radios won’t crash planes. Legislators have so much respect and patience for technical arguments that limit their power.

> If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store..

Android already allows side loading apps which don't have to come from an app store.

>An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them.

Would they, though? How can you stop arbitrary APK downloads from the internet? Or a site that constantly changes its domain? Look at how blocking places like The Pirate Bay goes.

I think there is more to be said for the impact of Apple and Google leaving the Pakistani market than you grant.

Google is willing to leave the Australian market because they don't want to share revenues with the newspapers they skim for headlines, but they will suppress religious minorities to comply with theocratic governments.

These Western companies do not hold any values.

I’m missing something in this oft repeated argument. If non-App Store distribution is the solution, there’s Cydia (or whatever the kids these days use) right? And Android is “open”, isn’t it? Just like TPB, those should be hard to block. And if you want Apple to “sanction” this app distribution method, that gets you right back to the situation where Apple can be pressured by local governments.

If there is no gatekeeper, there is no one for Pakistan to pressure. That is the problem with gatekeepers, it's a single point of failure.

It would hurt a bit though if Pakistan did not have Google's and apple's services though. So oppressing people would come at a price.

The problem here lies with the Nazis - not IBM.

They can't ban a windows pc software like this as it's not walled garden. When phones come with app store, they must be responsible.

Going to make an unpopular opinion:

Well... Their content is being blocked on behalf of their own government while Pakistani social media content, especially Twitter content is being banned by Twitter India on behalf of Indian government. Recently my account was restricted when I RTed tweets of an Indian raising voice against farmer protest and once I got banned because I RTed a tweet about atrocities in IOK.

We also witnessed how parker app was banned and how many content is taken down on behalf of Many governments.

The point is, many counties are involved in such wicked activities one way or other regardless of who is pro democracy and who isn't.

That's unfortunate considering Ahmadiyyas were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_in_Pakistan

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis

The community also produced Pakistan's first Nobel Laureate, and the first Muslim to receive a Nobel for science. Upon his death, the Pakistani government defaced his gravestone to remove the word "muslim".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdus_Salam

Indeed they are highly educated minority. Often it is thought that the British facilitated their establishment and growth and gave them opportunities both in the colony and abroad from which they prospered.

That supposes some sort of concerted action by the British Raj, which I don't think was the case. Rather, the early Ahmadi Caliphs were keen to state their loyalty to the British as their temporal masters, and that the hands-off British rule was preferable to native princes, especially the Sikhs. Like other evangelical movements in such an environment, they flourished.

It's true that they did take British money to establish early colleges in Punjab but no more (and quite a bit less) than the DAV schools did. But the story of British conspiracy falls apart when you consider they dragged MGA into court on charge of mailing a letter inside a parcel. If he was really working for Punjab CID or whatnot do you think they would have bothered with that or he would have bothered writing effusive letters of praise to judge when he was acquitted?

I don't understand how people can think Akbar Allahabadi was the best thing since sliced bread and then complain that other people participated in British education more than them. Doesn't that come with the territory?

I'm in pakistan and censorship here is... weird

----

like... on reddit, govt of pakistan banned some subreddits... but there is some bizarre pattern and it's not clear exactly what is banned, leading to some hilarious discoveries,

it's not just all subs tagged "nsfw", coz some of them are accessible, strangely enough (thank goodness for the RES nsfw filter)

/r/trees is banned... but /r/marijuana is not, nor is /r/cocaine for that matter ;p

quite a few porn subs are banned, which is understandable... but also banned is, and I shit you not, /r/handholding

it's literally a sub about anime characters holding hands, I mean....

just checked, /r/exmuslim is accessible, and so are various ahmadiyya related subs, (for now atleast) so huh...

I remember when /r/mapporn got banned once upon a time, but that was lifted

----

same for websites, you are browsing and suddenly you are met with a "surf safely" warning, and there is no rhyme or reason, there is nothing in the URL or the website content that resembles anything bannable, but yeah, until some fuck updates the filter, we are stuck

----

still, I make sure to NEVER EVER EVR say anything that remotely even touches any controversial subject even obliquely, it's a death sentence for your entire extended family, and accusations fly all too freely

https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport...

How should multinational conglomerates like Apple and Google handle sovereign nation states that violate The Golden Rule?

I think the best case scenario is to deescalate the situation while also minimizing the impact of the violation; I don’t have a clue how best to achieve this lofty goal.

Not operate in those spaces?

Suppose I've got a search engine. It's the best there is for searches in politics, sports, health, education, shopping, entertainment, and nearly everything else.

Country X passes a law that says search engines cannot return politics results.

If I stay in country X and filter out politics then the people in country X end up with no politics search and the best search in the world in all the other categories.

If I decide to not operate in X then the people there use some second rate search engine that obeys X's law. The people of X still end up with no politics search and they end up with second rate search in all the other categories.

How does my not operating in X help the people of X?

The people can live without your search engine, because there are other ways to find content.

It's hard enough to mount resistance against a repressive regime when it is blanketed with propaganda.

When companies like Google and Apple operate in those nations, they help legitimize and normalize that regime, confirming all the propaganda.

After all, the Google brand didn't come from the regime, they are a foreign firm that decided it was ethical to do business there.

If no one operates in X, X feels pressure to either compete themselves with subpar service as you have said, or they lose out on revenue by opening up for free trade and no longer restricting access on search engines to politics.

If you are asking how best to help their population in general, there are a lot better things you could do to help their people out. At a minimum, you could start your own private search business that refuses to limit your searches and fill in a niche and make an even better search algorithm rather than dictate what you think a private business should be able to do with their platform.

If this were a public right or utility, then you have an argument maybe, but last time I checked, private businesses aren't in the business of serving a public right, only try to make a profit.

It seems there is an obvious answer here. Have the US Government make it clear to the Pakistan Government that if they wish to start Trade Sanctions targetted against US companies then the USA will promptly place Trade Sanctions on Pakistan.

Actions have consequences.

Since the underlying issue here is clearly with Pakistan's laws, I tried looking up how effective a democracy Pakistan is, so that its people would be able to push for freedom of speech laws (or overturning the blasphemy laws) if they so wanted.

Hard to find unbiased sources on this, but it seems like while Pakistan has technically had democratic elections for a while, they have been mired with issues until fairly recently. From wikipedia: "The democratic elections held in 2008 were the first to conclude a complete 5-year term in the nations' political history."

Pakistan is as much a democracy as Bhutan or China.

Every (I do not exaggerate, you can actually check, since 1970) ex-leader of Pakistan was either assassinated, imprisoned or in exile.

Pakistan is military state, with the thinnest facade of democracy. The only people who are allowed to run are those who are already endorsed by the military.

By "caving" to governments, it seems like Apple and Google are trying to prevent new regulations from being implemented that would harm their businesses. Think about that for a second. Google is huge. Billions of dollars are at a stake for not only them, but their shareholders.

If Google is nice to the government, perhaps their good behavior will be remembered when it comes to voting on new legislation that would harm their business and shareholders.

This only applies to Pakistan. It isn't Google's or Apple's place to fix Pakistan's problems. A company has to obey the laws of the country they are operating in.

Those who oppose this should consider the alternative. Suppose there's an app that is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, which is against the law in the US. Since it is violating the law, shouldn't it be taken down?

Absolutely. Free speech means your default position is that you can say whatever you want, and then the court can determine if it violates the spirit of the law.

The flip side to this is that you can absolutely be given a sentence in other countries without free speech and have to litigate or violently overthrow the regime that denies you due process.

But in neither society should something like racism be tolerated. There is no good that can come from saying white people are better than black people simple because they are black. It is not a useful metric at all when evaluating people. MLK really said it best. Do not judge based on the color of his children's skin but the content of their character.

Let's go one step further:

Suppose there's an app which is openly racist and discriminates against POCs, and that is in accordance with the law in the US (as it was not too long ago).

Should Google allow that app, since it's in accordance with the law and it makes them money, or should they consider if the law is unethical according to their own moral compass?

Perhaps this hypothetical question is erroneous, as it assumes a trillion dollar corporation would be more concerned with ethics and morals than providing infinite growth for their shareholders.

So if Google would have had to use their phones to help find the SS find hidden Jewa, perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, they can and should do so since it is after all not their responsibility to fix Nazi Germany?

I fell down Internet hole and read https://www.reddit.com/r/Ahmadiyya_Truth/comments/bb7il1/ame...

They could have at least spelled Nancy Pelosi correctly.

Shahid's brother Rashid is the real issue, a vaccine truther and quack.

Didn't realize Rashid Buttar is his brother.

I once went down rabbithole of Rashid sites, they're crazy!

Information and Economic warfare should be seen as no different than physical warfare with weapons. (That is the crux of 4G and 5G warfare as is officially acknowledged in militaries today)

Google & Apple provide asymmetrical resources to 1 group (Pakistani Govt.) over the other (Ahmidiyas). This is no different than the US selling weapons only to the Saudis but not to Yemen.

The Saudi situation is clearly seen by everyone as morally deplorable. However, Google and Apple aren't subjected to any scrutiny.

I don't expect profit oriented companies to have any morals. However, Tech companies have spent an entire years of marketing expenses towards virtue signalling and claiming to be the ones who uphold morals. They have dug their own graves, now they must lie in it. They will deserve every twitter and internal storm created by a fresh scandal.

If McKinsey had blood on its hands for causing the Opioid epidemic, then so do Google and Apple for the persecution of the Ahmediyas. (Note: Ahmediyas are the only strictly peaceful sect of Islam. They are not militant insurrectionists or actively traitorous in a manner that would warrant violent reaction)

I mean, that's just not true, in 1948 they volunteered for the Kashmir conflict. Deendar Anjuman aside on top of it, whether they want to rewrite history is up to them. Currently they do have a better PR and track record it seems.

This is a good example of why walled gardens are so awful. Sometime they seem fine, but if all one can access is a walled garden, then all kinds of dystopian shit becomes trivial to implement.

Please never support walled gardens!

an interesting experiment is that with a politically charged post on India, many Indians will comment to criticize their own country and Pakistanis and some middle East folks would chime in too. but in case like this where Pak is involved, thry are all absent from discourse. not a single pakistani wants to criticize their country. Why ?

It's only normal, they did the same thing when politically pressured in the US.

The app appears to be available in the US on the App Play store.

Pakistan's persecution of the Ahmadis is despicable (and that of Hindus, and Christians), and Apple and Google's meek compliance is craven.

Censorship I don't like...

Hackernews threads seem to be overwhelming against most censorship so you may be preaching to their choir - the silence on the censoring of some hard left groups is a little disappointing.

Unless it is Parler then most Hacker News threads are pro censorship.

Unfortunately, this is not a Pakistan specific thing. Ahmadis have been persecuted in pretty much every major Muslim nation. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis

Prima facie, it'd seem that the common factor enabling their persecution is Islam.

I don't think that's a fair assessment of Islam.

The whole issue seems to be an internal argument among the Muslim community- so Islam is a necessary precondition for this problem, as it's the subject matter of the issue, but not the causative agent.

It's no longer an internal argument among Muslims. Laws of various countries do not identify Ahmadiyyas as non-Muslims.

The list of countries in that article also includes Belarus, Belgium and Bulgaria, where the common factor seems to have been Islamophobia instead.

That's an issue affects all muslims in those countries and many non-muslims who may appear that way.

Islam does have a huge internal debate over which branch is correct that has never been settled. To not accept this group of people is unique in Islamic countries because they have been using this as a weapon against minorities by creating separate laws. By extending to other muslims this is more about trying to make them lower members of society with less rights and an excuse for mistreatment without breaking religious morals. You are allowed to do things to non muslims that wouldn't be acceptable to a muslims.

Conversely, falsely accusing a Muslim of being an apostate is itself considered as grave a sin as apostasy itself. Sadly, that has not proven a deterrent for the Wahhabi takfiris, bankrolled by the oil wealth of the Saudi state.

Excommunication and intolerance is not at all exclusive to Islam, as the blood-drenched history of the Wars of Religion in Europe demonstrates.

Yes, it's unfortunately not that unusual in the UK. An Ahmadi shopkeeper was killed in 2016 by a Sunni taxi driver motivated by the shopkeeper's "heresy" [0]. A London mosque got into trouble last year for distributing 'kill Ahmadis' leaflets [1]

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/09/tanveer-ahme...

[1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47654430

Please don't cross into religious flamewar in HN comments. Your comment would be fine without the last sentence.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'd say I always found it strange how Ahmadis are universally persecuted in Pak, but a dozen way more funnier sects thrive. You constantly see some weird pirs, and "faith healers" on TV in Pakistan.

Are there still those wall chalkings for "aamil Junaid Bengali" all over Karachi? Edit: I guess not - https://www.dawn.com/news/918676/faith-healer-gets-three-yea...

There are few dozens of Junaid Bengalis at any given time. Last time been in the country in 2017, and some weird molana promising salvation for 5 lakh rupee was holding a rally in Islamabad right at the time I arrived.

There is an argument to be made for Apple and Google to not create a legal nexus there - just provide the services but no payments and no offices there - and don’t follow Pakistani laws.

Censorship by monopolies is worse than censorship by government

You have to be living in a free country to say that.

Indian government banned internet from Kashmir overnight without any notice. Most journos who say anything negative against gov are jailed without any court hearing.

I am all for pushing Google and Apple to change their stance on authoritarian governments. In this case, the ban is a direct result of gov censuring too.

I am waiting for comments from Alphabet Workers Union. They said they "demand that the tech industry refuse to maintain infrastructures of oppression". This seems like a perfect fit.

It's so horrifying to realize that something like "Anti-blasphemy laws" and the internet coexist in some countries.

Such as Switzerland.

Many European countries (like Germany, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Finland, parts of UK*, Poland, Russia) have blasphemy laws going as far as mandating prison terms, even if they rarely convict or even indict anyone under them.

* corrected from "UK".

Formally abolished in England and Wales in 2008. Still on the statute books for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Although a lot of anti-racist hate speech stuff could be used for the same effect in England and Wales.

Governments are wisening up. Tinfoil hat me says they're replacing "blasphemy laws" with more politically palatable yet more vague "Hate speech" laws that are ridiculously loose and can be applied how they see fit, including prosecuting blasphemy-like criticism of Religion. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So...

I don't see anything ridiculously loose about that law:

> No person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to be hurtful,be harmful or to incite harm, promote or propagate hatred. [65]

> The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth

What does "belief" mean? Is calling someone an idiot for believing that earth is flat hate speech?

Honesty I think you could probably a make a case for any insult falling under that law.

That sentence you quoted is incredibly vague. What exactly does it mean to promote hate?

Or lets take that quote and pick one cross section of word salad that they can use as a potential cross-product with legalese:

"No person may [communicate] words based on [occupation] against any person that can demonstrate an intention to be [hurtful]." Yes occupation is a protected group in that law.

Its all fine and dandy while this law is used to prosecute anti-lgbt people as an example. But that law will quickly be used to shut down legitimate debate and civilian disagreement when they can reframe the group/person being hurt by words as a victim. Just look at the heated debate regarding immigration. Questioning large scale immigration would be "hate speech" under this law, whilst simultaneously not prosecuting "hate speech" against a closed-borders group of people. Its essentially legislating societal-level feelings as valid.

You know, instead of actually having a debate and putting it down on paper as law and as an absolute. E.g. If we want free borders or large scale immigration, then lets just make a law allowing it.

"I think many religious Jewish groups fuel the Zionist sentiment in the Israeli government exacerbating the conflict with Palestine. Their influence must be curtailed"

Boom!, 10 months in jail for antisemitism.

Nowadays, most Western countries with anti-blasphemy laws on the books still have those laws precisely because they are never enforced. If they were enforced, there would be an outcry sufficient to have them immediately overturned.

It is like how the monarch in many a constitutional monarchy today technically still has power, but any actual attempt to use that power would probably lead to the end of that monarchy, at least in its current structure.

I think laws like blasphemy laws and ones against hate speech are mostly there to serve as a last resort in cases that can't reasonably be defended by anyone. There's a lot of grey area that's hard to define very clearly in law. So the laws generic blankets in order to cover a lot of options, then it's left to the prosecution to only take action when the offense is really egregious.

2018: "In Europe, Speech Is an Alienable Right: [the European Court of Human Rights] upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...

Not a prison term but just recently a Romanian member of Parliament has been fined by Romania's anti-discrimination committee for (they say) putting the person of Virgin Mary in a non-appropriate context (he had called her "surrogate mother").

Anything popular on a smartphone app store is compromised. If it weren't it would get taken off. See also: the recent de-platforming of Element (Matrix.)

Apple and Google made business decision to be gatekeepers to their platforms. This resulted in great profit for the companies, but at great cost of user freedoms.

Many people have celebrated Apple and Google censor and deplatform their competition and others with political bias. It’s a private company, they can do whatever they want.

Pakistan is private country, they can do whatever they want. Now, they are using their powers to force Apple and Google censor and deplatform.

Slippery slope is slippery and water is wet. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

where are all the commenters who told us private companies are free to filter on private platforms as they see fit?

Here! I support this! If it makes you want to use a different service and are critical of the giant platform that Apple and Google have, good!

The other positive here is that one less religion in the world is promoted as being equal to all others. I'd rather only have to deal with 4 mass delusions than 5.

The digital commons should be run on censorship resistant ledgers, like distributed public blockchains.

Why don't they just go make their own app store? Who do they think they are that they believe they have some right to someone else's hard drive. They're private companies brO!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com