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.
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.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...
It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...
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.
"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.
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?
Nuclear weapons may have something to say about that...
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.
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?
Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the choice to assent to this.
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.
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.
> 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?
Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 logical thing is to make Apple decide between servicing the entire American and European market and caving to repressive regimes.
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.
Companies are not a suoernatural force, they are conposed of people.
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.
>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.
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
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.
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.
ha
Unless you wish to wear religious articles.
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.
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.
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.
Please don't do anything like this on HN again, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
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.
If other comments are egregious, flag them and/or let us know at hn@ycombinator.com and we'll take a look.
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.
Please don't do anything like this on HN again, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
The whole blockclain free-for-all ungovernable banansa has it's place, but its not for everything.
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.