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.
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.
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.
The action you describe were tried anf they broke half the internet, and were backpedalled.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What if end users who buy the device WANT the manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device malware- and spyware-free?
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.
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."
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 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?
On Android at least, apps can be region-locked.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
Especially in Apple's case, this would be a useless ban if they let people download apps outside of the App Store.