Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus(iphoneincanada.ca)
iphoneincanada.ca
Apple tells Telegram to take down protestor channels in Belarus
https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-telegram-belarus/
636 comments
One issue is that public attitudes to doxxing vary between places. What is unacceptable in America may be considered more normal elsewhere.
In this specific situation there’s a pretty obvious power imbalance where the public do not wear masks and the authorities would be able to track them down and oppress them later (or just do what they currently do and grab them from the streets at the time). The threat of unmasking is one of the few things the people have to use against the authorities: when a policeman has his mask removed he will typically run away for fear of being identified. (The only other things they have are sheer numbers and the moral superiority of being basically peaceful against a violent government).
A similar argument about law enforcement safety was used by Apple to remove a map app in Hong Kong which showed people where large groups of police (and eg tear gas releases or which small coloured banners announcing illegal assemblies had been raised). The claim was that the app could be used to target individual policemen even though it only showed larger units and mainly helped people to get around the city without getting gassed by the police. Meanwhile the Chinese government were funding a site offering money for doxxing protestors but it wasn’t in the App Store so I guess it was ok.
In this specific situation there’s a pretty obvious power imbalance where the public do not wear masks and the authorities would be able to track them down and oppress them later (or just do what they currently do and grab them from the streets at the time). The threat of unmasking is one of the few things the people have to use against the authorities: when a policeman has his mask removed he will typically run away for fear of being identified. (The only other things they have are sheer numbers and the moral superiority of being basically peaceful against a violent government).
A similar argument about law enforcement safety was used by Apple to remove a map app in Hong Kong which showed people where large groups of police (and eg tear gas releases or which small coloured banners announcing illegal assemblies had been raised). The claim was that the app could be used to target individual policemen even though it only showed larger units and mainly helped people to get around the city without getting gassed by the police. Meanwhile the Chinese government were funding a site offering money for doxxing protestors but it wasn’t in the App Store so I guess it was ok.
the site you are referring to in your last sentence is not funded by Chinese government, but by a previous governor of Hong Kong (Liang I believe).
Let's be realistic here. Why Liang would fund a site like that. Either one of the reason: CCP ordered that, or he wants to show loyalty and earn credit to CCP. Either case, it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened and didn't ban it.
And Liang is vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. What it means is he is not officially CCP but a very trusted person to be included as decision maker of CCP.
And Liang is vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. What it means is he is not officially CCP but a very trusted person to be included as decision maker of CCP.
I don't think I like the argument of "it was as good as funding by CCP because CCP liked that to happened". CCP is a party with 90 million members, so if you argue Liang act as a member of CCP, I think I am okay with that.
I don't know should we be 'realistic' or should we be 'accurate' when we make a point. This is a strange time.
I don't know should we be 'realistic' or should we be 'accurate' when we make a point. This is a strange time.
It is an interesting point so I can discuss a little bit. Seems people didn't understand the implication of an autocratic government.
When people tried to avoid government funded software, let say a communication app, what is the reason? Because we want to avoid state-owned software violating user privacy and sent all my personal data for their profiling database.
You will trust a private company for that more, why? Because even a private company have to obey court order to disclose personal information to law enforcement, they usually have the right to deny it before the issue escalated to the court.
Now what is the case for autocratic government? Are there any real private company? Using China as an example, any person have to right to inform the government about secret information obtained, so China government have the right to get any information obtained from any Chinese private company without court order. In addition, any large organization including public company have to setup a party branch and have CCP member to oversee the organization. Including Huawei, claiming to be a private company.
So, using any product from any private Chinese company has equivalent disadvantage to a 3-letter agency funded VPN network.
Now back to the issue of if Liang is CCP or not. I won't quote unconfirmed source about Liang is a hidden CCP member. Just use the opened fact, Liang is a formal governor of Hong Kong, which means Liang has taking oath to CCP and CCP trusted this person to rule HK. Liang is currently a decision maker inside CCP's committee, and if Liang has conduct issue from CCP's point of view, then Liang can be secretly prosecuted by party order and put in jail in China.
Another example is Teresa Cheng, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice. For some reason she has been to UK but being taken back to China for investigating her conduct and possibility for applying political asylum by party secret police. She was then released and continued her work in Hong Kong. Detailed is not confirmed, but one thing is clear. Any Hong Kong official can be threatened by party secret police and they must do their job according to CCP plan.
When people tried to avoid government funded software, let say a communication app, what is the reason? Because we want to avoid state-owned software violating user privacy and sent all my personal data for their profiling database.
You will trust a private company for that more, why? Because even a private company have to obey court order to disclose personal information to law enforcement, they usually have the right to deny it before the issue escalated to the court.
Now what is the case for autocratic government? Are there any real private company? Using China as an example, any person have to right to inform the government about secret information obtained, so China government have the right to get any information obtained from any Chinese private company without court order. In addition, any large organization including public company have to setup a party branch and have CCP member to oversee the organization. Including Huawei, claiming to be a private company.
So, using any product from any private Chinese company has equivalent disadvantage to a 3-letter agency funded VPN network.
Now back to the issue of if Liang is CCP or not. I won't quote unconfirmed source about Liang is a hidden CCP member. Just use the opened fact, Liang is a formal governor of Hong Kong, which means Liang has taking oath to CCP and CCP trusted this person to rule HK. Liang is currently a decision maker inside CCP's committee, and if Liang has conduct issue from CCP's point of view, then Liang can be secretly prosecuted by party order and put in jail in China.
Another example is Teresa Cheng, Hong Kong Secretary for Justice. For some reason she has been to UK but being taken back to China for investigating her conduct and possibility for applying political asylum by party secret police. She was then released and continued her work in Hong Kong. Detailed is not confirmed, but one thing is clear. Any Hong Kong official can be threatened by party secret police and they must do their job according to CCP plan.
But isn't the former governor pretty much a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party though?
nah they're still a person, the conversion to puppet proved more difficult than expected
ROFL
But the whole point here is that this line of reasoning is limited. If Apple were indiscriminately ordering protestor channels to be taken down, we wouldn't accept an excuse that suppressing protestors is "considered more normal" in Belarus, or an argument that the unique context of Belarus means they have no choice but to restrict speech in ways America wouldn't. So if Apple has strong principles against doxxing people, should they really compromise on that just because it'd be good for the protestors if they did?
Apple is completely out of place meddling in Belarus' politics.
Not only that, the stance they are taking is with a dictator who stole the election ...
Not only that, the stance they are taking is with a dictator who stole the election ...
Apple absolutely shouldn't meddle in Belarus's politics. But if Belarusian users are using their platform to incite violence, as Apple says they are, don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?
They're using Telegram. Not Apple's platform. If Telegram was a Windows, or even a web app, should Microsoft be threatening to block Windows users from being able to access the app or even website?
I think this is probably the best argument against platforms with locked app stores- civil liberties. The only reason that Belarus can ask Apple to ask (force) Telegram to do this, is because there is no reasonable alternative for most people to get an application onto their phone. If I could easily install other app stores onto my phone, then government requests like this would not be effective.
I'm pretty sure that the most people are able to navigate to web.telegram.org and create a bookmark in their browser of choice. Overall it's an even simpler set of steps than any app store can provide you with, and you don't need to regularly download new updates for it.
And Apple continues to cripple progressive web apps in iOS (example: push notifications), unfortunately making this idea not as useful as on Android.
In some instances, like standing up to a violent, oppressive, and dictatorial regime violence is generally considered an acceptable form of political action.
Even if that's true - and I'm not going to get into that debate here - surely that doesn't mean that every company has to allow their products to become tools of mass violence.
Violence may be seen as legitimate, but it shouldn’t be seen as effective. In a study of over 300 movements, non violent protests are twice as effective. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file...
Non-violence is only effective where the oppressor is vulnerable to moral pressure. In many cases, the oppressor is not.
(Not stating my personal examples, too contentious, but I'm sure you could find your own).
(Not stating my personal examples, too contentious, but I'm sure you could find your own).
If you had a study showing that in over 300 carpentry projects hammers were used twice as often as screwdrivers, would that convince you to hammer in a screw?
My point is that violence may not be a good fit for every situation, but that doesn't mean it never is. Gandhi was an effective non-violent protester, against the British in Africa when backed by large numbers. How effective would Gandhi have been protesting against the Nazis?
I don't know anything about Belarus, so I don't know anything about what is or isn't justified, it just seems wrong to me to suggest that violence is categorically less effective. Political violence is a tool and like any other has moments where it should and shouldn't be used.
My point is that violence may not be a good fit for every situation, but that doesn't mean it never is. Gandhi was an effective non-violent protester, against the British in Africa when backed by large numbers. How effective would Gandhi have been protesting against the Nazis?
I don't know anything about Belarus, so I don't know anything about what is or isn't justified, it just seems wrong to me to suggest that violence is categorically less effective. Political violence is a tool and like any other has moments where it should and shouldn't be used.
As far as I can tell, though, unmasking isn't really coded as violent in the sense that the writer suggests.
Huh? Tell that to Ukrainian at first peaceful protestors. Which then turned into mildly violent, then hard violent (from the govt side largely) in the end, including what Ukraine now calls the 100 in Heaven
?
How ineffective was that protest?
How ineffective was that protest?
Non-violent protests didn't work too well against the Nazis. There are exceptions to every rule.
Would nonviolent protest against Hitler have been twice as effective as the war?
The trick is that Apple is essentially a utility company and replacing it is a significant expense to the user.
And it needs to be aware of it's power and act accordingly. Maybe a "device neutrality" law should be in order.
To throw a dumb example your electricity company is not policing you for how you are using your killowats.
To throw a dumb example your electricity company is not policing you for how you are using your killowats.
Electrical utilities in many areas did routinely report excessive usage to law enforcement for investigation of suspected indoor marijuana farms.
I'd like to see such a law, but I'm not sure this particular situation can be solved that way. The Belarusian government would presumably just pass a non-neutrality law, and then we're in the same place as before where Apple has to decide based on moral and practical considerations.
> allow their products to become tools
This is precisely why lack of choice in app stores is so harmful. The phones belong to the people. Without the app store, the manufacturer has no grounds to allow or disallow behavior.
This is precisely why lack of choice in app stores is so harmful. The phones belong to the people. Without the app store, the manufacturer has no grounds to allow or disallow behavior.
> .. don't they have a moral responsibility to try and do something about it?
Is Apple a law enforcing agency with jurisdiction in that region? If the answer to that is no, then the answer to your (rhetorical) question is equally no.
Even more, Apple might very well be the one legally at fault here, for assuming authoritative powers for which it has absolutely no legal mandate or justification.
So, if anything, it is rather Apple that is likely the one braking the law here, despite all the rhetoric about Apple having some kind of moral duty (absolute hogwash).
It isn't so much about meddling, but more about Apple assuming powers it should never have in the first place (legally speaking).
Is Apple a law enforcing agency with jurisdiction in that region? If the answer to that is no, then the answer to your (rhetorical) question is equally no.
Even more, Apple might very well be the one legally at fault here, for assuming authoritative powers for which it has absolutely no legal mandate or justification.
So, if anything, it is rather Apple that is likely the one braking the law here, despite all the rhetoric about Apple having some kind of moral duty (absolute hogwash).
It isn't so much about meddling, but more about Apple assuming powers it should never have in the first place (legally speaking).
If there are violence, it is a civil war. Does apple like to meddle their hand in blood? Especially they are standing for the dictatorship, which does not put Apple in a good position even if they are going to get into the issue.
Is doxxing a police officer even unacceptable in America? There is very different standard of privacy between an average Joe and an agent of the state performing their duties.
If I've been reading the news correctly, the investigation into the terrorist plot against the Michigan governor was launched because someone was trying to learn the home addresses of police officers. Seems like that is not very well accepted in America.
Was this not simply about getting the names of masked secret police?
Also, the issue with getting the gome adresses of police officers in that case is that the intent was to bomb them, not getting their address per se, as that really is quite easily done and not something the state would notice.
Also, the issue with getting the gome adresses of police officers in that case is that the intent was to bomb them, not getting their address per se, as that really is quite easily done and not something the state would notice.
Mentioning public attitudes as a focus for discussion is basically appeal to authority: just because some other group here or elsewhere thinks something is good or bad, doesn’t make it so. The ideas below that part stand just fine without talking about popularity of norms
I think it's more to highlight the fact that there are differing opinions, and American sensibilities shouldn't necessarily dictate what people in separate countries can do. I see no mention of popularity.
In what particular hellhole have I even landed that we are now using the terms of a Twitter fight to discuss brutal, indiscriminate suppression of protests?
Applying "doxxing" rules to police on the job in public must be the most absurd perversion of the term ever. Why on earth would we grant privacy to public servants entrusted with the force monopoly?
Applying "doxxing" rules to police on the job in public must be the most absurd perversion of the term ever. Why on earth would we grant privacy to public servants entrusted with the force monopoly?
Do you mean all police everywhere?
It really is one of the most egregious examples of a cultural echo chamber I've seen on HN.
We're talking about a brutal police force serving a corrupt and delegitimized regime, that is involved in extrajudicial detention, torture, and murder of peaceful protesters. This unit, the OMON, was specifically established to serve as Lukashenko's beatstick against the opposition. Now, the overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement in Belarus has turned towards intimidation (no actual violence has been reported, afaik) against these people specifically, as a way of fighting back.
And then you see people on HN referring to this as "doxxing", as if this was some kind of pithy Twitter fight. I understand that Twitter fights are what people around here can more easily relate to their own life experience than what is currently going on in Belarus, but for Christ's sake, let's try and put things in perspective here.
We're talking about a brutal police force serving a corrupt and delegitimized regime, that is involved in extrajudicial detention, torture, and murder of peaceful protesters. This unit, the OMON, was specifically established to serve as Lukashenko's beatstick against the opposition. Now, the overwhelmingly peaceful protest movement in Belarus has turned towards intimidation (no actual violence has been reported, afaik) against these people specifically, as a way of fighting back.
And then you see people on HN referring to this as "doxxing", as if this was some kind of pithy Twitter fight. I understand that Twitter fights are what people around here can more easily relate to their own life experience than what is currently going on in Belarus, but for Christ's sake, let's try and put things in perspective here.
Well, goldenboy Apple has been caught yet again in its own hypocrisy. These mental gymnastics the fanboys are pulling are worthy of some gold medals.
Sure, but for Apple to change its policies specifically in this case is for Apple to take sides in a political conflict/civil war. I don't think that's a viable outcome either.
Apple doesn't have any good options here; I think their strategy of a toothless demand with no follow through might well be the least worst option for Apple, and for Telegram.
Apple doesn't have any good options here; I think their strategy of a toothless demand with no follow through might well be the least worst option for Apple, and for Telegram.
I wasn't really commenting on what Apple should or shouldn't be doing, just on the tone of the conversation in this thread. That said...
Apple have a really good, straightforward option: Don't police user-generated content in iOS apps. Or, at the very least not the ones intended specifically for communication. They aren't listening to people's phone calls or reading their messages in search of ToS-breaching content after all.
It simply shouldn't be any of their business what Telegram's users post on Telegram's platform. Telegram should be able to independently make the decision what it wants to permit therein.
Apple have a really good, straightforward option: Don't police user-generated content in iOS apps. Or, at the very least not the ones intended specifically for communication. They aren't listening to people's phone calls or reading their messages in search of ToS-breaching content after all.
It simply shouldn't be any of their business what Telegram's users post on Telegram's platform. Telegram should be able to independently make the decision what it wants to permit therein.
> In what particular hellhole have I even landed that we are now using the terms of a Twitter fight to discuss brutal, indiscriminate suppression of protests?
I don't see any part of the comment doing that. Can you quote it?
I see internet terms being applied to the actions against the police, and those actions aren't brutal at all.
I don't see any part of the comment doing that. Can you quote it?
I see internet terms being applied to the actions against the police, and those actions aren't brutal at all.
This seems to match this post, where apple is asking to remove telegram groups used to de-anonymize law enforcement members.
Apple could do something really simple if they wanted to not interfeer with how people organize their fight: allow to install apps outside of the app store. This would force law enforcement to deal with Telegram directly rather than being able to take advantage of apple's own authoritarian way to run its platform.
Now it's a question of what's apple highest priority, people freedom or profit.
Apple could do something really simple if they wanted to not interfeer with how people organize their fight: allow to install apps outside of the app store. This would force law enforcement to deal with Telegram directly rather than being able to take advantage of apple's own authoritarian way to run its platform.
Now it's a question of what's apple highest priority, people freedom or profit.
We all know the answer to that
Profit.
They are already requiring entitlements to develop things that use the network extension framework (no sideload for VPNs and proxies bypassing the Chinese firewall).
This is just them being forced (again) to make visible the negative sides of such a centralized platform.
They are already requiring entitlements to develop things that use the network extension framework (no sideload for VPNs and proxies bypassing the Chinese firewall).
This is just them being forced (again) to make visible the negative sides of such a centralized platform.
It would also allow governments to force people to install tracking apps, as they do in parts of China.
It’s not simple.
It’s not simple.
Apple could still retain the capability to delete malicious apps from phones (even apps that weren't installed via the App Store).
Presumably Belarus would then make a demand that Apple delete Telegram from people's phones as it is "malicious", but I'd hope that forcing a company to delete things from someone's phone is legally harder than forcing them to hide things on their own servers.
Presumably Belarus would then make a demand that Apple delete Telegram from people's phones as it is "malicious", but I'd hope that forcing a company to delete things from someone's phone is legally harder than forcing them to hide things on their own servers.
And that capability would be trivial for Belarus to side-step.
Presumably you're imagining some sort of cat-and-mouse game where Belarus release a new version of the app, and then Apple add that app to the blacklist (which iPhones would update daily from Apple's servers, and broadcast via AirDrop).
Rather than blacklisting the app's name or hash, Apple would probably have to blacklist the Developer ID, which it would be hard for Belarus to generate quicker than Apple could blacklist.
Rather than blacklisting the app's name or hash, Apple would probably have to blacklist the Developer ID, which it would be hard for Belarus to generate quicker than Apple could blacklist.
Unnecessary because they can already force you to pass all monetary transactions through an app like WeChat and can track you all they want there.
And let's not pretend that Apple has shown any willingness to stand up to the Chinese government.
And let's not pretend that Apple has shown any willingness to stand up to the Chinese government.
As this is the inevitable consequence of a platform where a central party controls all software on it, Apple picked profit day 1.
> messages that de-anonymize Belorussian police members,
Police officers must not be able to act anonymously. This is not like "doxxing" anonymous Internet trolls or forum users or whatever.
> Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information
If they don't like published information, they are welcome to sue the people who published it. That is, if they are in cahoots with the US government's foreign meddling initiatives.
> that discloses someone's data on the Internet without the consent of these persons, as well as content aimed at specific people in accordance with the rules of the App Store.
Can't break the rules of the all-powerful Apple app store, now can we? Tsk tsk tsk.
> This refers to the efforts of the Belorussian opposition to 'unmask' members of the riot police by posting their personal details online.
> So what do you do if you are Apple?
Exploit my users, perform mass surveillance for the US government, breath down the neck of app makers, produce cheaply with poor employment conditions in China, and manipulate the media to fawn over me. That is, if I were Apple.
Luckily I'm not Apple and neither are you, so don't think about what you would do in a place in which you should never get to.
Police officers must not be able to act anonymously. This is not like "doxxing" anonymous Internet trolls or forum users or whatever.
> Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information
If they don't like published information, they are welcome to sue the people who published it. That is, if they are in cahoots with the US government's foreign meddling initiatives.
> that discloses someone's data on the Internet without the consent of these persons, as well as content aimed at specific people in accordance with the rules of the App Store.
Can't break the rules of the all-powerful Apple app store, now can we? Tsk tsk tsk.
> This refers to the efforts of the Belorussian opposition to 'unmask' members of the riot police by posting their personal details online.
> So what do you do if you are Apple?
Exploit my users, perform mass surveillance for the US government, breath down the neck of app makers, produce cheaply with poor employment conditions in China, and manipulate the media to fawn over me. That is, if I were Apple.
Luckily I'm not Apple and neither are you, so don't think about what you would do in a place in which you should never get to.
Griefing?
Belarus is on the brink of civil war.
Doxxing regime supporters can easily end up as a "murder todo list" if things heat up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing
Belarus is on the brink of civil war.
Doxxing regime supporters can easily end up as a "murder todo list" if things heat up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Griefing
And visa versa - mainstream platforms don't seem like the place too do this
> Doxxing regime supporters can easily end up as a "murder todo list" if things heat up.
Do you give an innuendo that this is somehow wrong?
Do you give an innuendo that this is somehow wrong?
I would advocate that these things are clearly wrong and should be defended against:
- Killing a "regime supporter", meaning someone targeted only because of their political beliefs. It is not right that political beliefs should be punished like that. Ideally they shouldn't be punished at all, they should be tolerated but simply lose an election.
You can't claim to "protest for democracy" while being happy to facilitate murdering people who vote for the other side! That would be mad hypocrisy.
- Killing a police officer whose crime, even if violent, fell significantly short of killing someone themselves. Punishment should fit the crime, not be 10x worse.
You can't claim to "protest for justice" while being happy to facilitate extra-judicial killings that aren't even based in justice.
- Killing an innocent person who is mis-identified, whether by accident or not so much.
See above.
The third point, killing an innocent person seems even more likely due to automated facial recognition software like what's running on Facebook, with its biases and a mask to add more noise too, integrated with deepfake image reconstruction technology to produce convincing "unmasked" images, combined with vigilantes often not being too bothered about accuracy and statistics.
However wrong or right you think it is, surely everyone agrees it's wrong if it ends up getting the wrong people.
But no apparently. I've spoken with people in other situations (at other times) who said, basically, it's ok for "a few innocents" to die if that's what it takes to rid the world of guilty people. And others taking the view that it's ok for "police" to die because police are bad. Both views strike me as boneheaded AF.
It is clear AF from the reports that the Belarus authorities think it's ok for some number of innocents to die and suffer for the sake of policing and intimidation. If I were there I would certainly want the authority to "die", by being thoroughly dismantled asap.
- Killing a "regime supporter", meaning someone targeted only because of their political beliefs. It is not right that political beliefs should be punished like that. Ideally they shouldn't be punished at all, they should be tolerated but simply lose an election.
You can't claim to "protest for democracy" while being happy to facilitate murdering people who vote for the other side! That would be mad hypocrisy.
- Killing a police officer whose crime, even if violent, fell significantly short of killing someone themselves. Punishment should fit the crime, not be 10x worse.
You can't claim to "protest for justice" while being happy to facilitate extra-judicial killings that aren't even based in justice.
- Killing an innocent person who is mis-identified, whether by accident or not so much.
See above.
The third point, killing an innocent person seems even more likely due to automated facial recognition software like what's running on Facebook, with its biases and a mask to add more noise too, integrated with deepfake image reconstruction technology to produce convincing "unmasked" images, combined with vigilantes often not being too bothered about accuracy and statistics.
However wrong or right you think it is, surely everyone agrees it's wrong if it ends up getting the wrong people.
But no apparently. I've spoken with people in other situations (at other times) who said, basically, it's ok for "a few innocents" to die if that's what it takes to rid the world of guilty people. And others taking the view that it's ok for "police" to die because police are bad. Both views strike me as boneheaded AF.
It is clear AF from the reports that the Belarus authorities think it's ok for some number of innocents to die and suffer for the sake of policing and intimidation. If I were there I would certainly want the authority to "die", by being thoroughly dismantled asap.
Yes. Murdering people that you disagree politically with is wrong. Even the actual nazis were allowed to surrender and stand trial. Vigilantism is nearly always a bad thing.
Who can put Nazi on trial? The people in Germany? History said it was the ally. And ally has killed many Nazi before they can put Nazi on trial.
If you don't see the power imbalance between the government and the people, then you are very lucky that you had not experienced it.
Not trying to justify murdering, but some kind of deterrence for oppressing peaceful, freedom-loving people is not a bad thing. Of course if it become French Revolution style execution after taking power, that is wrong and it must be stopped. For the moment, that is before that state, so anything can be bearable.
If you don't see the power imbalance between the government and the people, then you are very lucky that you had not experienced it.
Not trying to justify murdering, but some kind of deterrence for oppressing peaceful, freedom-loving people is not a bad thing. Of course if it become French Revolution style execution after taking power, that is wrong and it must be stopped. For the moment, that is before that state, so anything can be bearable.
That's kiiiiiiinda the point
Maybe the guys should have thought about that before they started attacking peaceful protesters.
This is just one tool, and there will be killing with or without it.
This is just one tool, and there will be killing with or without it.
I'm sure a bit of murdering will totally cool things down and peacefully resolve things, with no innocent deaths or casualties. As we all know, vigilantes never make mistakes.
Violence is sometimes the only way forward, though. It should be the way of last resort, but a way nevertheless. That's why we have democracy: so we can remove the people in power by ballot instead of by guillotine. When the former avenue is blocked, violence is all that remains...
Doesn't this go right back to thinking things through before attacking people people?
Right or wrong, when people are abused repeatedly, and or they cease to believe in governance, they will act out and it won't all be nice.
The root cause here is an authoritarian regime failing to justify their authority. People acting out is a symptom.
Right or wrong, when people are abused repeatedly, and or they cease to believe in governance, they will act out and it won't all be nice.
The root cause here is an authoritarian regime failing to justify their authority. People acting out is a symptom.
> People acting out is a symptom.
Yes, but the discussion here is about whether Apple should facilitate or hinder particular kinds of act by people.
That's not a symptom for Apple, that's a dilemma for Apple, and there is no truly neutral option.
Yes, but the discussion here is about whether Apple should facilitate or hinder particular kinds of act by people.
That's not a symptom for Apple, that's a dilemma for Apple, and there is no truly neutral option.
Yes, and I spoke to that in the thread. This comment was in reference to violent and or just not so nice political action.
Regarding apple...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24741156
Regarding apple...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24741156
Knowing who breaks the law and applies violence to civil protesters will allow to have a fair trial later.
https://t.me/durov/136
At least being transparent and willing to take a part of responsibility of this action?
At least being transparent and willing to take a part of responsibility of this action?
[deleted]
[deleted]
(offtopic)
> (google translate)
DeepL is a much better translator, at least for the languages I know and according to all comparisons I’ve heard others make, btw (though I don’t know if Yandex Translate is better for Russian).
> (google translate)
DeepL is a much better translator, at least for the languages I know and according to all comparisons I’ve heard others make, btw (though I don’t know if Yandex Translate is better for Russian).
You're right. I just tried this, into Japanese:
"I cannot believe you would say that to me."
It came up with:
私にそんなことを言うなんて信じられないわ
Holy crap, complete with a disparaging なんて, and a nice わ sentence-ender to make it a feminine sounding complaint.
I'm almost sensing like the thing is tying to tell me, "here is how your boring English sounds if it is turned into line from a J-drama."
Was this trained using subtitle databases, I wonder. It's as if a mediocre English subtitle was found, similar to my text, and the corresponding original line had been retrieved.
"I cannot believe you would say that to me."
It came up with:
私にそんなことを言うなんて信じられないわ
Holy crap, complete with a disparaging なんて, and a nice わ sentence-ender to make it a feminine sounding complaint.
I'm almost sensing like the thing is tying to tell me, "here is how your boring English sounds if it is turned into line from a J-drama."
Was this trained using subtitle databases, I wonder. It's as if a mediocre English subtitle was found, similar to my text, and the corresponding original line had been retrieved.
[deleted]
> So what do you do if you are Apple?
Nothing because Apple has ZERO, no place meddling in this business.
Just hear yourself, "it's against the TOS" versus people on the streets trying to save their own country from a stolen election and a dictator??
OF COURSE the TOS of a tech company is completely irrelevant in this situation.
TOS aren't even laws, they were just created by a profit driven corporation for legal protection. Of course they aren't relevant here.
Just because Apple can say this, and can pressure Telegram, doesn't mean they aren't absolutely in the wrong here.
Nothing because Apple has ZERO, no place meddling in this business.
Just hear yourself, "it's against the TOS" versus people on the streets trying to save their own country from a stolen election and a dictator??
OF COURSE the TOS of a tech company is completely irrelevant in this situation.
TOS aren't even laws, they were just created by a profit driven corporation for legal protection. Of course they aren't relevant here.
Just because Apple can say this, and can pressure Telegram, doesn't mean they aren't absolutely in the wrong here.
Just hear yourself, "it's against the TOS" versus people on the streets trying to save their own country from a stolen election and a dictator??
This is literally the "just comply with the police and you'll be fine" argument.
Yes, we KNOW everyone clicked through the ToS, but it _completely_ misses the point of the discussion.
This is literally the "just comply with the police and you'll be fine" argument.
Yes, we KNOW everyone clicked through the ToS, but it _completely_ misses the point of the discussion.
Whilst I agree with the specifics here, the problem is the general case.
I don't agree that you should be allowed to post people's private, identifying data to a public forum without consent.
This HAS to apply equally, because the idea that there is a universal set of right and wrong is incredibly naive.
A better argument here is how the laws aren't applied equally.
TrueCaller was used by the Chinese to harass and attack human rights activists, and it is essentially an index of everyone's contact list.
Yet, somehow, this doesn't bother Apple. 100% financially motivated.
But my point stands. These telegram channels that exist to distribute public data of people merely accused of being involved with the regime should be shutdown. The term here is witch hunt and I'll take a lot of convincing that innocent people haven't already been falsely accused
I don't agree that you should be allowed to post people's private, identifying data to a public forum without consent.
This HAS to apply equally, because the idea that there is a universal set of right and wrong is incredibly naive.
A better argument here is how the laws aren't applied equally.
TrueCaller was used by the Chinese to harass and attack human rights activists, and it is essentially an index of everyone's contact list.
Yet, somehow, this doesn't bother Apple. 100% financially motivated.
But my point stands. These telegram channels that exist to distribute public data of people merely accused of being involved with the regime should be shutdown. The term here is witch hunt and I'll take a lot of convincing that innocent people haven't already been falsely accused
This is just beef with Telegram. That’s where the content is hosted.
Apple as a distributor should have NO relevance to this. Apple is like a landlord who legally rented his shop to people who run it as a bar in which some people might meet to discuss protests. Should the police even call the landlord? Should the landlord act on this info?
Apple as a distributor should have NO relevance to this. Apple is like a landlord who legally rented his shop to people who run it as a bar in which some people might meet to discuss protests. Should the police even call the landlord? Should the landlord act on this info?
But in this case Apple have a key to the front door of the bar and no one can enter the bar unless Apple let them. So should Apple lock the door if the police tell them to?
The only reason Apple has (the only) key to the front door is because they refused to give those keys to anyone else (including their property leasees) for "their own protection."
Depends on the rent contract.
If, as you say Apple is like a landlord, Apple can demand specific things in the contract (ie no pets) and the person renting needs to comply.
Not getting into the moral side of the argument of Apple Vs Telegram but want to point out that the landlord example isn't applicable in my opinion.
If, as you say Apple is like a landlord, Apple can demand specific things in the contract (ie no pets) and the person renting needs to comply.
Not getting into the moral side of the argument of Apple Vs Telegram but want to point out that the landlord example isn't applicable in my opinion.
I don’t think there is anything about impeding political protesters in the Apple EULA. Even if there were something, certain things are typically protected in law; in most western countries, for example, a landlord cannot forbid a shop from serving members of a specific religion or of a specific ethnicity.
I am not saying anything about political protesters, only commenting on the example you used (landlord one) to say it's not applicable in this case.
> Even if there were something, certain things are typically protected in law; in most western countries, for example, a landlord cannot forbid a shop from serving members of a specific religion or of a specific ethnicity
Of course, but the landlord can forbid a shop from having any animals inside the shop for example, except the service animals ofc or to say that only specific type of shop can operate on the ground (prior to signing the contract). This is a more complex issue than "landlord example"
> Even if there were something, certain things are typically protected in law; in most western countries, for example, a landlord cannot forbid a shop from serving members of a specific religion or of a specific ethnicity
Of course, but the landlord can forbid a shop from having any animals inside the shop for example, except the service animals ofc or to say that only specific type of shop can operate on the ground (prior to signing the contract). This is a more complex issue than "landlord example"
No it really isn’t. As you say, clauses can be added before it is signed. Once it is, and the shop is operating, the landlord cannot just rewrite conditions on a whim. What you are really showing is that Apple is worse than a landlord. QED.
Let's not twist the argument.
Those channels exist to spread private, identifiable data and this breaks the law.
A better version of your argument is Apple is the landlord where people are planning lynchings.
Again, I side with the Belarusians. But pretending this is different to China's doxxing of Uighurs is naive
Those channels exist to spread private, identifiable data and this breaks the law.
A better version of your argument is Apple is the landlord where people are planning lynchings.
Again, I side with the Belarusians. But pretending this is different to China's doxxing of Uighurs is naive
An even better version of your argument is that Apple is the landlord, Telegram is the one renting the space to run a bar, and a few people are in the back corner planning lynchings. Should it be Apple's responsibility to tell their tenant to kick those people out? Or should the authorities be going straight to the tenant?
The worst part is that this isn't even accurate. What this is really like is Apple sells a bunch of residences, the users are buying their homes, but for some reason all utilities/cable/internet/etc. has to go through the real estate company that the house was purchased from as they dictate what you can and cannot do in that house. Even stranger, it is now somehow the real estate company's place and responsibility to tell a telephone company that the real estate company allows to drop conference calls that mention the private information of some third party, whether the phone calls are coming from the houses purchased from them or not.
The worst part is that this isn't even accurate. What this is really like is Apple sells a bunch of residences, the users are buying their homes, but for some reason all utilities/cable/internet/etc. has to go through the real estate company that the house was purchased from as they dictate what you can and cannot do in that house. Even stranger, it is now somehow the real estate company's place and responsibility to tell a telephone company that the real estate company allows to drop conference calls that mention the private information of some third party, whether the phone calls are coming from the houses purchased from them or not.
>Those channels exist to spread private, identifiable data and this breaks the law.
Out of curiosity, to which law are you referring?
I'm not being snarky here, I'm just not clear about which law(s) are being broken.
According to the Wikipedia page for Telegram[0], Telegram's team is based in Dubai, and the company is registered in the UK and the US.
IANAL, nor am I any sort of expert on US, UK or Dubai law. If you could expand on this, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)#History
Out of curiosity, to which law are you referring?
I'm not being snarky here, I'm just not clear about which law(s) are being broken.
According to the Wikipedia page for Telegram[0], Telegram's team is based in Dubai, and the company is registered in the UK and the US.
IANAL, nor am I any sort of expert on US, UK or Dubai law. If you could expand on this, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)#History
When I was a kid the phone book came every year. It had the telephone numbers and addresses of just about everyone.
The specific issue here is that the shared information is targeted at a specific group and seems likely to be used with dangerous intent
That doesn't characterize a general record of numbers/addresses, which more or less ensures some basic anonymity as connecting names to numbers doesn't do much outside some other qualifier, like, these people are the police who are suppressing our cause
That doesn't characterize a general record of numbers/addresses, which more or less ensures some basic anonymity as connecting names to numbers doesn't do much outside some other qualifier, like, these people are the police who are suppressing our cause
Are you referring to the opt in database of details you were expected to update yourself?
I’m pretty sure people were consenting to have their number listed there in their agreement with their Telco.
You actually had to pay for an unlisted number, IIRC
Yeah! I remember that too. Mmmm also caller id enabled lines also. Yum.
There is no general case. The idea of the general case is fundamentally a tool of oppression. Human moral encounters and decisions are personal.
> I don't agree that you should be allowed to post people's private, identifying data to a public forum without consent.
The problem with that belief is enforcement.
Because illegal numbers [0] are trivially shared, the only viable enforcement to prevent their sharing must have incredibly broad reach.
This ultimately collapses down into "users cannot be allowed to own and operate their own general purpose computer."
And while I'm open to arguments as to why the above is a straw man (I disagree), if you believe the above enforcement scheme is for the greater good then we have very different ideas about individual freedom and the relative value thereof.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
The problem with that belief is enforcement.
Because illegal numbers [0] are trivially shared, the only viable enforcement to prevent their sharing must have incredibly broad reach.
This ultimately collapses down into "users cannot be allowed to own and operate their own general purpose computer."
And while I'm open to arguments as to why the above is a straw man (I disagree), if you believe the above enforcement scheme is for the greater good then we have very different ideas about individual freedom and the relative value thereof.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
That feels like a false equivalency, because what I'm talking about is the right to be forgotten.
Which is only a fallacy because data is a commodity, not because it's technically impossible.
And yes you can't really be forgotten, copies can always exist but it shouldn't be hosted readily if you don't want it to be.
Unless I'm missing something?
Which is only a fallacy because data is a commodity, not because it's technically impossible.
And yes you can't really be forgotten, copies can always exist but it shouldn't be hosted readily if you don't want it to be.
Unless I'm missing something?
How would you propose to enforce that goal?
It might not be enforceable, while still coming under "shouldn't".
It's not always possible to make people do the right thing. But when it's not possible, it doesn't cease to be the right thing to demand, continuously, hoping to use the power of pressure or persuasion.
It's not always possible to make people do the right thing. But when it's not possible, it doesn't cease to be the right thing to demand, continuously, hoping to use the power of pressure or persuasion.
I disagree that the only viable enforcement is preemptive blocking. Plenty of offenses in the physical world only have after-the-fact punishments. There aren't spike strips physically preventing you from parking in the red zone.
Preemptive blocking or omnipresent monitoring.
Both of which are contingent on end users not being allowed to possess strong encryption.
Both of which are contingent on end users not being allowed to possess strong encryption.
> This HAS to apply equally
No, it really doesn't. IMO it has to apply consistently. And it's easy to maintain cohesion / consistency here: If you have different rights, you get different rights.
Police have additional rights, particularly when acting in the course of their jobs - specifically, they have the right of violence. Seems reasonable to give up the "right" of protection-from-griefing.
No, it really doesn't. IMO it has to apply consistently. And it's easy to maintain cohesion / consistency here: If you have different rights, you get different rights.
Police have additional rights, particularly when acting in the course of their jobs - specifically, they have the right of violence. Seems reasonable to give up the "right" of protection-from-griefing.
> Police have additional rights
No, police exercise and are protected by powers of government, these are not the same kind of thing as rights, and do not belong to the individual the way rights do. Moreover, the legitimacy of such powers is exactly dependent on the legitimacy of the government and the extent to which it observes the rights of the people subject to it's powers.
No, police exercise and are protected by powers of government, these are not the same kind of thing as rights, and do not belong to the individual the way rights do. Moreover, the legitimacy of such powers is exactly dependent on the legitimacy of the government and the extent to which it observes the rights of the people subject to it's powers.
Duck-typing, to my eyes; particularly when looking at doxxing, TOS, and overall morality/ethics. Sure. Not "rights" in a legal sense, but...
Is there a difference between equal and consistent application? I agree, but it seems we're saying the same thing?
The problem is somehow we have engineered a global society where Apple is the ultimate law enforcement authority in scenarios like this.
Is Tim Cook really qualified to be the ultimate authority of what speech is allowed or not allowed on a global basis, at least for all the billions of people who use their devices?
Similarly for Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. We cannot allow a very small number of corporate CEOs to make unilateral decisions about how to police speech across the globe.
Is Tim Cook really qualified to be the ultimate authority of what speech is allowed or not allowed on a global basis, at least for all the billions of people who use their devices?
Similarly for Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. We cannot allow a very small number of corporate CEOs to make unilateral decisions about how to police speech across the globe.
Either we remedy that, or we need to enforce a form of due process.
Tim Cook is not qualified. No single person is.
That suggests either:
Apple stay out and the discussion moves to Telegram
, or
Apple and others need a formalized process, just like we use for other conflicts.
A case needs to be made, rules of order, etc... and a decision comes from all of that, not what makes more money, or what might cost money.
Tim Cook is not qualified. No single person is.
That suggests either:
Apple stay out and the discussion moves to Telegram
, or
Apple and others need a formalized process, just like we use for other conflicts.
A case needs to be made, rules of order, etc... and a decision comes from all of that, not what makes more money, or what might cost money.
>Nothing because Apple has ZERO, no place meddling in this business.
Not meddling means enforcing its TOS in an evenhanded way. Otherwise it's playing favorites.
Not meddling means enforcing its TOS in an evenhanded way. Otherwise it's playing favorites.
When one side is an illegitimate government who stole an election, and the other side is millions of people fighting for democracy and freedom, possibly, just possibly, it's time to pick a side. Even if you're a huge amoral profit driven company who's fear of losing 0.1% of your profit precludes you from taking sides... Well, maybe just sit this one out?
So Apple is now in charge of deciding whether elections are legitimate?
It's weird how people in this thread are zigzagging between saying Apple has too much corporate power and Apple needs much more.
Does every country in the world really have to be a democracy? Remember how the Arab Spring turned out?
It's weird how people in this thread are zigzagging between saying Apple has too much corporate power and Apple needs much more.
Does every country in the world really have to be a democracy? Remember how the Arab Spring turned out?
> Does every country in the world really have to be a democracy?
They don't.
Does every country in the world really need to have racial equality and an even-handed police force? They don't either.
They don't.
Does every country in the world really need to have racial equality and an even-handed police force? They don't either.
> So Apple is now in charge of deciding whether elections are legitimate?
Don't worry, Apple doesn't have to decide anything here. The US government already did.
Don't worry, Apple doesn't have to decide anything here. The US government already did.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted, but perhaps people don't believe the claim that the US government has formally taken a side on the legitimacy of the elections:
https://www.axios.com/us-lukashenko-president-belarus-353ed2...
It seems to me that this offers a clever way out for Apple: If Lukashenko isn't the legitimate president of Belarus, then the "police" following his orders to attack protesters are not police at all, but terrorists; and Telegram is helping to bring them to the attention of the legitimate authorities of the president in exile.
https://www.axios.com/us-lukashenko-president-belarus-353ed2...
It seems to me that this offers a clever way out for Apple: If Lukashenko isn't the legitimate president of Belarus, then the "police" following his orders to attack protesters are not police at all, but terrorists; and Telegram is helping to bring them to the attention of the legitimate authorities of the president in exile.
How do you know the opposition would have won the election if not for the alleged cheating?
It seems very easy from the outside looking in to conclude that an organization should play judge and jury for external conflicts. But having run a small internet forum and occasionally being asked to resolve disputes, even trivial he-said she-said spats can be incredibly difficult to investigate and untangle.
I won't pretend I know what Apple should do here. But I certainly don't agree with the cavalier assertion that unrelated organizations need to confidently pick sides in moral and political battles. Just because you're so certain what the answer should be doesn't mean that you're right. And your lack of visibility and accountability means you risk much less when you quickly come to strong moral conclusions than do large organizations.
I won't pretend I know what Apple should do here. But I certainly don't agree with the cavalier assertion that unrelated organizations need to confidently pick sides in moral and political battles. Just because you're so certain what the answer should be doesn't mean that you're right. And your lack of visibility and accountability means you risk much less when you quickly come to strong moral conclusions than do large organizations.
Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone.
Would people object if Apple told Telegram they had to remove a channel that was being used by white supremacists to coordinate terrorist attacks?
The answer to that question matters, because if users in this thread succeed in making iPhones less of a walled garden, terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate terror repeatedly on a large scale, and there won't be anything Apple can do about it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Personally, 2020 has satiated my appetite for craziness, and I'm ready for a little stability.
Would people object if Apple told Telegram they had to remove a channel that was being used by white supremacists to coordinate terrorist attacks?
The answer to that question matters, because if users in this thread succeed in making iPhones less of a walled garden, terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate terror repeatedly on a large scale, and there won't be anything Apple can do about it. Is that really the world you want to live in? Personally, 2020 has satiated my appetite for craziness, and I'm ready for a little stability.
I think a channel for white supremacists to coordinate terror attacks existing isn't good, per se, but it should still be possible for them by default and the government should have to demonstrate that it can responsibly handle the power to police it before we let it do so. So at the current state of the world, I wouldn't object to Apple doing this, but I'm still in favor of white supremacists being able to do this, because I don't know of any mechanism by which you could stop precisely white supremacist terrorists from coordinating but not also citizens coordinating against state power.
I don't want white supremacists being able to carry out terror attacks, but I want people to be able to coordinate demonstrations and civil resistance, and I'm not aware of a way to do this without also enabling white supremacists, and I think that's a valid tradeoff.
I don't want white supremacists being able to carry out terror attacks, but I want people to be able to coordinate demonstrations and civil resistance, and I'm not aware of a way to do this without also enabling white supremacists, and I think that's a valid tradeoff.
A state is most of the time a tool for a majority to oppress a minority. Laws and police are just their tools, and so are dictators. Whoever is labeled a dictator is just a figurehead supported by majority of elites, who in turn are supported by economically strong coalition, represented by some majority of people who are united.
Precisely, there is no difference between oppressing white supremacist minority and any other minority that wants to overthrow the status quo. It’s not going to be easier or harder depending on how the anti state elements are hiding their communication, because their conflict has to become public to have the effect you desire, which is some systemic change that you agree with ( making you part of this group by the way).
I’m not saying privacy is not important. I’m wondering whether unmitigated privacy is more important to people you and I most probably do not support.
Precisely, there is no difference between oppressing white supremacist minority and any other minority that wants to overthrow the status quo. It’s not going to be easier or harder depending on how the anti state elements are hiding their communication, because their conflict has to become public to have the effect you desire, which is some systemic change that you agree with ( making you part of this group by the way).
I’m not saying privacy is not important. I’m wondering whether unmitigated privacy is more important to people you and I most probably do not support.
> A state is most of the time a tool for a majority to oppress a minority. Laws and police are just their tools, and so are dictators. Whoever is labeled a dictator is just a figurehead supported by majority of elites, who in turn are supported by economically strong coalition, represented by some majority of people who are united.
I don't agree that that characterisation of a state is true.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it misses out some essential features which are directly relevant to that description, for some states anyway.
One of those is: Some states (maybe the USA?) believe in more than just acting out the wishes of the majority at any given time.
Some of them believe in ideals, which outlive an ephemeral majority. Things like "rule of law" (which doesn't mean clobbering minorities, it means the government is held to account rather than acting like a rogue king), "human rights" (in theory, things like the Magna Carta), "justice" (as defined by a long history of institutions and systems whose learned principles are studied by people that practice in it).
You can certainly argue that sort of thing still comes down to some level of majority oppressing a minority. But I think the character of that ruling is very different in ways that matter, if it demonstrates a decent attempt at those attributes and builds them into stable institutions, than if it doesn't bother or just pays lip service.
I don't agree that that characterisation of a state is true.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it misses out some essential features which are directly relevant to that description, for some states anyway.
One of those is: Some states (maybe the USA?) believe in more than just acting out the wishes of the majority at any given time.
Some of them believe in ideals, which outlive an ephemeral majority. Things like "rule of law" (which doesn't mean clobbering minorities, it means the government is held to account rather than acting like a rogue king), "human rights" (in theory, things like the Magna Carta), "justice" (as defined by a long history of institutions and systems whose learned principles are studied by people that practice in it).
You can certainly argue that sort of thing still comes down to some level of majority oppressing a minority. But I think the character of that ruling is very different in ways that matter, if it demonstrates a decent attempt at those attributes and builds them into stable institutions, than if it doesn't bother or just pays lip service.
Good point. Today's world is a grand experiment to find out what is the right balance between stability and privacy.
Stability comes with slowing down the progress and the top taking ever so more and getting more corrupt. So there always need to be some upwards pressure.
Stability comes with slowing down the progress and the top taking ever so more and getting more corrupt. So there always need to be some upwards pressure.
This isn't a government, this is Apple. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Apple to install some speed bumps against activity such as doxxing or terror which it strongly frowns upon.
Yes, it is quite different. Twitter is one of many platforms. If it begins to censor content it’s relatively straightforward to move to telegram or signal of matrix. The App Store on the other hand is a platform of platforms so its decisions affect all platforms on it. if you’re on an iPhone, there’s nowhere else to go. And Belarus has a gdp per capita of 6300. I imagine for most citizens getting a new phone is not trivial.
Well yeah, white supremacists are violent racist. People protesting against election fraud, aren't.
If your idea of stability is the opression of the unprivelidge, then you are part of the problem.
This is exactly why corrupt government call protesters anarchists, so middle class people wouldn't mind opression as long as there's stability. While usually the actual destabilization and craziness comes from the people with power who are afraid to lose it.
I can't judge you personally, but history will.
I can't judge you personally, but history will.
Read my last paragraph. The point is that you can't jailbreak one without jailbreaking the other.
Should it be Apple's business to police terrorists?
Governments have found it convenient to offload policing to communication companies, via putting liability on them unless they do.
I don't think this is the way to go.
Governments have found it convenient to offload policing to communication companies, via putting liability on them unless they do.
I don't think this is the way to go.
I'm a moderate, I didn't say it should be Apple's business, I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this.
If Apple wants to change their TOS and say "publishing personal information is now OK", that is one thing. Maybe publishing personal information should be allowed. The point is that there is an intelligent human being weighing tradeoffs and trying to make a good decision as we muddle our way through the 21st century.
Infrastructural changes, on the other hand, aren't as reversible. Screwups are more likely to be permanent. You're flipping a switch that can't be flipped back. That is the point I was trying to make by mentioning terrorism--there can be unintended consequences which you don't necessarily anticipate, so retaining flexibility is good.
If Apple wants to change their TOS and say "publishing personal information is now OK", that is one thing. Maybe publishing personal information should be allowed. The point is that there is an intelligent human being weighing tradeoffs and trying to make a good decision as we muddle our way through the 21st century.
Infrastructural changes, on the other hand, aren't as reversible. Screwups are more likely to be permanent. You're flipping a switch that can't be flipped back. That is the point I was trying to make by mentioning terrorism--there can be unintended consequences which you don't necessarily anticipate, so retaining flexibility is good.
>I'm saying maybe it's a good thing if our comms infrastructure affords Apple the flexibility to do this.
I'm having trouble understanding your point. Apple makes devices. They sell (not rent or lease) those devices.
As such, just as if I were to buy a gun or a knife or a dozen chicken wings, what I do with such a device isn't anyone else's business. It's mine.
If I use that gun or knife to injure or kill someone, is the gun or knife manufacturer involved? No. Because I, not the manufacturer, am responsible for my actions. They have nothing to do with it.
If I insert those chicken wings into orifices other than my mouth, is that any business of the restaurant who sold them to me? No. For the same reasons.
As such, Apple is no more part of the "comms infrastructure" (and especially in this case, as it isn't Apple software -- like iMessage -- being used) than the knife manufacturer is part of my circus knife throwing act.
This issue is broader than the awful stuff going on in Belarus.
Who owns the stuff you purchase? If the manufacturer (and/or other private entities) can unilaterally decide what you can or cannot do with your own property, then you don't really own it.
And there will always be some folks who object to the use of, well, just about anything.
Should the folks at PETA[0] be able to block communications between a group of friends going hunting for deer or quail?
In their understanding, that's exactly the same as a group plotting to kill humans.
The situation in Belarus is more complicated, as it pits the the government against the governed. Even so, I say it's not the place of a manufacturer to tell someone what they may or may not do with a product once it has been sold.
What's more, Telegram needs to decide what happens on their infrastructure and Apple has no business being involved at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...
I'm having trouble understanding your point. Apple makes devices. They sell (not rent or lease) those devices.
As such, just as if I were to buy a gun or a knife or a dozen chicken wings, what I do with such a device isn't anyone else's business. It's mine.
If I use that gun or knife to injure or kill someone, is the gun or knife manufacturer involved? No. Because I, not the manufacturer, am responsible for my actions. They have nothing to do with it.
If I insert those chicken wings into orifices other than my mouth, is that any business of the restaurant who sold them to me? No. For the same reasons.
As such, Apple is no more part of the "comms infrastructure" (and especially in this case, as it isn't Apple software -- like iMessage -- being used) than the knife manufacturer is part of my circus knife throwing act.
This issue is broader than the awful stuff going on in Belarus.
Who owns the stuff you purchase? If the manufacturer (and/or other private entities) can unilaterally decide what you can or cannot do with your own property, then you don't really own it.
And there will always be some folks who object to the use of, well, just about anything.
Should the folks at PETA[0] be able to block communications between a group of friends going hunting for deer or quail?
In their understanding, that's exactly the same as a group plotting to kill humans.
The situation in Belarus is more complicated, as it pits the the government against the governed. Even so, I say it's not the place of a manufacturer to tell someone what they may or may not do with a product once it has been sold.
What's more, Telegram needs to decide what happens on their infrastructure and Apple has no business being involved at all.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...
> […] terrorists will be able to use their iPhones to coordinate terror repeatedly on a large scale, and there won't be anything Apple can do about it.
And? If they're using (say) Signal or even Messages, it's already end-to-end encrypted and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
> Is that really the world you want to live in?
You mean like they're able to use GPG/PGP, Tor browser, and Tails Linux distribution to potentially have secure encrypted communications now? Terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime have been the boogeymen against strong crypto for decades:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
Coming at it form the opposite end: should the IETF weaken TLS with backdoors so the government agencies can monitor the bad people? Is that really the world you want to live in?
And? If they're using (say) Signal or even Messages, it's already end-to-end encrypted and there's nothing Apple can do about it.
> Is that really the world you want to live in?
You mean like they're able to use GPG/PGP, Tor browser, and Tails Linux distribution to potentially have secure encrypted communications now? Terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime have been the boogeymen against strong crypto for decades:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
Coming at it form the opposite end: should the IETF weaken TLS with backdoors so the government agencies can monitor the bad people? Is that really the world you want to live in?
> We've been through this before in the 1990s, and the techies (who tend to often lean libertarian) have generally sided with opening things up even if that meant the baddies also got the same capabilities:
Going in a different direction, you could also look at the state of Windows malware (and adware, eg toolbars) as a potential outcome to the un-walled garden approach: you end up with malware and thus the existence of an anti-malware industry.
Going in a different direction, you could also look at the state of Windows malware (and adware, eg toolbars) as a potential outcome to the un-walled garden approach: you end up with malware and thus the existence of an anti-malware industry.
Yes, I think this is one advantage of iOS that allows people who use it with confidence and not worry too much about clicking the wrong thing.
It's why I like(d) Linux and Mac OS X (macOS) as well: I can set up my parents with a non-admin default account on their system and not worry too much about them hosing things too greatly (especially with off-machine backups). Windows caught up with that paradigm eventually.
If sideloading comes to iOS I hope that a similar mechanism is introduced: not just "please confirm" dialogue and/or Touch/FaceID pop-up, but a separate 'login'.
It's why I like(d) Linux and Mac OS X (macOS) as well: I can set up my parents with a non-admin default account on their system and not worry too much about them hosing things too greatly (especially with off-machine backups). Windows caught up with that paradigm eventually.
If sideloading comes to iOS I hope that a similar mechanism is introduced: not just "please confirm" dialogue and/or Touch/FaceID pop-up, but a separate 'login'.
That would be best, but then you have the current situation with Epic saying that Android's warnings cause consumers to be frightened when trying to install their third-party app store, so I'm not sure what solution there is that both protects consumers from malware and allows trusted third-parties to have their own apps or app stores. I guess you could have notarization for iOS apps, but then you'd still have that Apple dependence that Epic is against.
But yes, the safeguards that prevent sideloading today make me confident in recommending an iOS device even to someone that downloads malware anytime an ad shows up promising free gift cards.
But yes, the safeguards that prevent sideloading today make me confident in recommending an iOS device even to someone that downloads malware anytime an ad shows up promising free gift cards.
Moore’s Law of Mad Science: “Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”
I'm happy that GPG/PGP etc. are a bit difficult to use, because it makes the IQ threshold necessary to coordinate nastiness secretly a bit higher.
Remember how great the blogosphere was prior to the advent of social media? Social media made "blogging" a little more accessible and it became a cesspool. Speed bumps can be a very good thing.
I'm happy that GPG/PGP etc. are a bit difficult to use, because it makes the IQ threshold necessary to coordinate nastiness secretly a bit higher.
Remember how great the blogosphere was prior to the advent of social media? Social media made "blogging" a little more accessible and it became a cesspool. Speed bumps can be a very good thing.
> Moore’s Law of Mad Science: “Every eighteen months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point.”
There is research on this in the field of existential risk. I don't remember where exactly but it's formulated as the number of people one person can kill with easily accessible products. In particular biotech is becoming more and more accessible, which great, but has a big impact on that index. There is a great defcon talk by a doctor working at Intel I think.
There is research on this in the field of existential risk. I don't remember where exactly but it's formulated as the number of people one person can kill with easily accessible products. In particular biotech is becoming more and more accessible, which great, but has a big impact on that index. There is a great defcon talk by a doctor working at Intel I think.
This is a false equivalency. One is a group objecting to rigged elections and another is a group that advocates for violence against others based on ethnicity.
Those are very different things, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two.
Those are very different things, and it is necessary to differentiate between the two.
I didn't claim they were equivalent.
Really? Your answer to Apple restricting information posted by people protesting elections is to ask how people would feel about restricting information from white supremacist terrorists. At the very least, this is a whataboutism argument, trying to shift the discussion away.
> Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone.
No, this is Microsoft telling Twitter to take down that tweet, because they have a Windows app. Or threatening to block access to the app or twitter.com.
No, this is Microsoft telling Twitter to take down that tweet, because they have a Windows app. Or threatening to block access to the app or twitter.com.
>Yeah, I don't see how this is different from Twitter taking down a tweet which doxxes someone.
I dont think that is an accurate analogy. It would more accurate to describe AWS / GCP asking Twitter to take down a tweet. Because Apple in your example Apple should be replaced with Telegram.
I dont think that is an accurate analogy. It would more accurate to describe AWS / GCP asking Twitter to take down a tweet. Because Apple in your example Apple should be replaced with Telegram.
This keeps being posted and keeps disappearing, so I'm going to not link to it, but when you search around, a post on telegram by Pavel Durov explains that apple has in fact made 2 demands: Take down the private information __and__ in addition to that, do so silently: Do not replace it with a notice explaining which part of apple's guidelines were breached, because that would be 'irrelevant' info.
Apparently, whilst the quandary is real, apple is either living on a different planet than I am, or doesn't care, and decided to pepper in something that the vast majority (I would assume) find distasteful 1984 stuff.
Apparently, whilst the quandary is real, apple is either living on a different planet than I am, or doesn't care, and decided to pepper in something that the vast majority (I would assume) find distasteful 1984 stuff.
Here's Durov's response:
```
Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
By hiding their demands with vague language, Apple is trying to avoid the responsibility of enforcing their own rules. It is understandable: according to this poll, over 94% of Belarusian users think the channels that made Apple worry should be left alone.
Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.
Similarly, when Facebook wanted to inform its users that 30% of the fees users were paying for online events went to Apple, Apple didn’t let Facebook do it saying this information was (once more) “irrelevant”.
I strongly disagree with Apple’s definition of “irrelevant”. I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant.
Apple has the right to be greedy and formalistic (or maybe not – that’s something for the courts and regulators to decide). But it’s time Apple learned to assume responsibility for their policy instead of trying to hide it from users – they deserve to know.
```
https://t.me/s/durov/136
```
Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
By hiding their demands with vague language, Apple is trying to avoid the responsibility of enforcing their own rules. It is understandable: according to this poll, over 94% of Belarusian users think the channels that made Apple worry should be left alone.
Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.
Similarly, when Facebook wanted to inform its users that 30% of the fees users were paying for online events went to Apple, Apple didn’t let Facebook do it saying this information was (once more) “irrelevant”.
I strongly disagree with Apple’s definition of “irrelevant”. I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant.
Apple has the right to be greedy and formalistic (or maybe not – that’s something for the courts and regulators to decide). But it’s time Apple learned to assume responsibility for their policy instead of trying to hide it from users – they deserve to know.
```
https://t.me/s/durov/136
I take no issue with wanting to remove content that doxxes people, even if those people are doing bad things. I do, however, take issue with Apple pushing this idea that they can decide what information you can and cannot give users. Barring people from saying "Hey, we didn't delete this because we wanted to, Apple asked us to" is a bit suspect as it leads to people associating the act with the app by default. It takes away agency from companies while giving Apple free reign to rule without being blamed for any mistakes.
Even more, Apple has assigned itself powers that in most (sane) countries are a strict monopoly of governments (and preferably only after going through a legal system/process and strictly regulated).
Especially Apple's attempt/request/demand to remove things silently goes way beyond what any company (or citizen) should ever be allowed to do to speech of others. Whether this doxxing is justified or not, that's up to courts and certainly not Apple. Censorship (while debatable if it ever should be allowed in some cases or never) should always be a monopoly of a state (which should be legally accountable) and never commercial entities.
I'm honestly a bit surprised, that so far I hear few governments protest, about how a commercial company basically usurped powers that are supposed to be limited to governments only. Such powers belong only there not just by habit or by convention, but also because this an important aspect of the legal order in any state of law. That is, at least for any country that has signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As appalling as Apple's behavior might be (and I certainly hope they will pay dearly for it), it's not particularly surprising (anymore). But the silence of governments on this behavior, that should worry more people a lot more.
Especially Apple's attempt/request/demand to remove things silently goes way beyond what any company (or citizen) should ever be allowed to do to speech of others. Whether this doxxing is justified or not, that's up to courts and certainly not Apple. Censorship (while debatable if it ever should be allowed in some cases or never) should always be a monopoly of a state (which should be legally accountable) and never commercial entities.
I'm honestly a bit surprised, that so far I hear few governments protest, about how a commercial company basically usurped powers that are supposed to be limited to governments only. Such powers belong only there not just by habit or by convention, but also because this an important aspect of the legal order in any state of law. That is, at least for any country that has signed and ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As appalling as Apple's behavior might be (and I certainly hope they will pay dearly for it), it's not particularly surprising (anymore). But the silence of governments on this behavior, that should worry more people a lot more.
By telling Apple they can’t control others’ speech on their platform, you are in effect controlling Apple’s speech, forcing them to host or be associated with material they don’t want.
> By telling Apple they can’t control others’ speech on their platform, you are in effect controlling Apple’s speech
Since when is control, or censorship, of what someone else says speech in it's own right? If Apple wanted a disclaimer next to a message, or something along those lines, you might still remotely have somewhat of a point.
Following your contrived line of "reasoning", any TV producer should have a right to decide what viewers can (and can not) watch on their hardware.
Last time I checked, companies that make product for a consumer market explicitly do NOT have a right to decide what consumers can do with it.
Somehow, software producers already got way more leeway with that than the probably ever should have in the first place (in accordance with the law). But to argue that they should because it's about the free speech of companies, is absolutely bunkers.
I'm aware that the USA made the rather mind boggling decision that companies are people to them (though arguably only so politics could be even more corrupted with corporate money), giving rise to the lunacy of a company having something as free speech. But even accepting that as a (dismal) fact of reality (in the USA), controlling the speech of others just isn't speech itself. More importantly, such control is explicitly forbidden by law (even as per the UDHR).
Since when is control, or censorship, of what someone else says speech in it's own right? If Apple wanted a disclaimer next to a message, or something along those lines, you might still remotely have somewhat of a point.
Following your contrived line of "reasoning", any TV producer should have a right to decide what viewers can (and can not) watch on their hardware.
Last time I checked, companies that make product for a consumer market explicitly do NOT have a right to decide what consumers can do with it.
Somehow, software producers already got way more leeway with that than the probably ever should have in the first place (in accordance with the law). But to argue that they should because it's about the free speech of companies, is absolutely bunkers.
I'm aware that the USA made the rather mind boggling decision that companies are people to them (though arguably only so politics could be even more corrupted with corporate money), giving rise to the lunacy of a company having something as free speech. But even accepting that as a (dismal) fact of reality (in the USA), controlling the speech of others just isn't speech itself. More importantly, such control is explicitly forbidden by law (even as per the UDHR).
it's pretty convenient if you can just force another company to take the PR hit for your unpopular decision, because you own the microphone
> This keeps being posted and keeps disappearing
Fwiw, t.me is banned on HN because the vast majority of submissions don't show anything unless you install their app. It seems some posts are also display actual content, but they're rare, and it would require writing some special-case code to whitelist them.
Fwiw, t.me is banned on HN because the vast majority of submissions don't show anything unless you install their app. It seems some posts are also display actual content, but they're rare, and it would require writing some special-case code to whitelist them.
Telegram is small enough for Apple to bully. Imagine if Apple tried to force Twitter to censor every "cancel crusade" or be removed from the App Store.
[deleted]
Telegram has more monthly active users than Twitter (400 million vs 360 million, according to Statista)
Even going by metrics like cultural significance, there are large regional differences. It's a little unfair to call them smaller, even if they don't quite have the same level of political and social clout in the US.
Even going by metrics like cultural significance, there are large regional differences. It's a little unfair to call them smaller, even if they don't quite have the same level of political and social clout in the US.
User numbers don't matter if you're not making money off them. Telegram is privately funded by Pavel Durov. Twitter's yearly revenue is equal to Durov's entire net work. Twitter's market cap is 250 times higher than Telegram's.
> Twitter's yearly revenue is equal to Durov's entire net work. Twitter's market cap is 250 times higher than Telegram's.
Contrary to your goal you actually made Durov sound much more impressive.
Contrary to your goal you actually made Durov sound much more impressive.
Durov's an extremely impressive individual. It doesn't change the fact that kicking Twitter off the app store could put a dent in Apple's iPhone sales and would almost certainly generate a lot of negative Western press. Telegram getting the boot wouldn't.
It would destroy sales in large parts of the world where it's the default messaging app, similar to how kicking off WhatsApp would in other parts of the world.
Exactly? Why does Apple get to moderate Telegram's users?
If you let a communication app onto your platform, you are letting people use that to communicate. It is not up to apple to moderate telegram. It is up to telegram.
If apple wanted to, they could argue "Telegram is so badly moderated we want them off our platform". But that is very different from saying "If you do not take these specific moderation actions, we will kick you off our platform". Unless telegram was already on very thin ice with Apple, this is a massive over-reach by Apple.
If you let a communication app onto your platform, you are letting people use that to communicate. It is not up to apple to moderate telegram. It is up to telegram.
If apple wanted to, they could argue "Telegram is so badly moderated we want them off our platform". But that is very different from saying "If you do not take these specific moderation actions, we will kick you off our platform". Unless telegram was already on very thin ice with Apple, this is a massive over-reach by Apple.
Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though? Telegram is a platform for user-generated content and it seems odd for Apple to single-out those 3 channels/groups specifically - what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram?
And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist groups - or for a more-fair comparison: Awful groups on WhatsApp.
If there's one thing worse than burdensome walled-garden rules, it's inconsistent enforcement of them.
And why Telegram in particular? Why doesn't Apple give the same ultimatum to Facebook to pressure them to block access to militant ethnonationalist groups - or for a more-fair comparison: Awful groups on WhatsApp.
If there's one thing worse than burdensome walled-garden rules, it's inconsistent enforcement of them.
With this kind of policy Apple's hypocrisy really shines bright. An app like Reddit is allowed, meanwhile Telegram not only has to not show porn channels to users, but now has to ban content from the whole platform or be removed from the App Store. On Reddit, there by far more porn accessible to users, and probably more "incitement of violence" too. There's no way to support Apple here. Just another example of the tyranny of the App Store.
Yet at the same time it was apple and app store policies that apparently drove the decision to ban porn from Tumblr. If Reddit ever goes on a similar decline, I could see Reddit being suddenly held to those guidelines too.
> And why Telegram in particular?
It ended up as the main way Belarussian protesters organize themselves. TG is a huge target for their government and I would not be surprised if Apple is being pressured by them.
It ended up as the main way Belarussian protesters organize themselves. TG is a huge target for their government and I would not be surprised if Apple is being pressured by them.
Apple painted this target on their own back when they decided they’d be the sole distributor of software for the platform.
It’s not like Indian/U.S. government didn’t ask Google to take down TikTok from the Play Store.
As long as they operate an app store, they will be a target. Just might not be the only target.
As long as they operate an app store, they will be a target. Just might not be the only target.
You can sideload tiktok on your android if you're so inclined.
So what? If that was a practical means of installing it for most people, the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
That is a way more difficult target to hit. People can follow a 3 step instruction easily enough.
That's kinda the point that having a single controlling entity makes the ecosystem vulnerable to this kind of pressure.
That's kinda the point that having a single controlling entity makes the ecosystem vulnerable to this kind of pressure.
People don’t follow 3 step instructions easily enough. That’s exactly why Apple is so successful.
I wish it weren’t so.
I wish it weren’t so.
Motivated users (which protesters definitely count as) will absolutely manage to successfully sideload an Android app. Especially seeing as how they are all routinely physically meeting up with many other protesters, so all it takes is running into someone who helps them get set up. Back in my Ingress days I had a similar situation where we were doing a big operation using a command and control coordination sideloaded app. Most of the people were able to figure it out ahead of time, but the last few had others help them download, install, and configure it when we met up for the op. Protests would be exactly the same thing.
> the governments would go after whoever hosts the APK.
Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.
I believe it is also possible to share apps via Bluetooth.
Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.
I believe it is also possible to share apps via Bluetooth.
>Have you thought about what that would mean in practice? Given that the APK could be hosted on multiple (TLS-enabled) foreign sites, a government would need a team of people to be constantly monitoring the web for sites containing the APK, who would then send orders to domestic ISPs demanding that they prevent their customers from accessing those foreign sites.
You mean like the MAFIAA[0] has been doing for decades?
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MAFIAA
You mean like the MAFIAA[0] has been doing for decades?
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MAFIAA
My understanding is that the legal and technical process for getting ISPs to block access to a foreign website is one that takes weeks or months. Also, even with this power, I'm not sure how effective the MAFIAA have been at stopping people from downloading copyrighted media:
https://www.mobiles24.co/downloads/s/96965-m1769-speak_softl...
https://www.mobiles24.co/downloads/s/96965-m1769-speak_softl...
I believe you're absolutely correct.
My point was that any similar attempt would likely be just as unsuccessful.
My point was that any similar attempt would likely be just as unsuccessful.
That’s an extremely good point.
[deleted]
Belarus is the last European dictatorship considered a pariah state with no international influence and propped up economically by Russia, so I don't think it has much leverage over Apple. The situation would be very different if it was, for example, China.
> what about the hundreds of thousands of other objectionable groups on Telegram
Exactly! If they want to start policing all content generated through apps that can be installed on iOS... they'll start getting millions of takedown requests from governments around the world.
Very weird decision strategically, and ofc very questionable morally.
Exactly! If they want to start policing all content generated through apps that can be installed on iOS... they'll start getting millions of takedown requests from governments around the world.
Very weird decision strategically, and ofc very questionable morally.
I would be surprised if this were not a demand from the Belarus government, threatening sanctions on Apple, possibly with Russian support.
The Belarus government can just block the App store entirely and may, if Apple does not comply.
> The Belarus government can just block the App store entirely and may, if Apple does not comply.
So what???
Protestors are being imprisoned and tortured, they actually hanged protest organizers from trees, as a scare tactic, does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this?
It is ethically abhorrent, disgusting and beyond terrifying.
If the team responsible for this at Apple is reading this thread, you should know you have blood on your hands.
So what???
Protestors are being imprisoned and tortured, they actually hanged protest organizers from trees, as a scare tactic, does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this?
It is ethically abhorrent, disgusting and beyond terrifying.
If the team responsible for this at Apple is reading this thread, you should know you have blood on your hands.
100% agreed.
> does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this?
They just did. They are. And I shall treat them as such.
> does Apple really want to go on public record as an enabler of this?
They just did. They are. And I shall treat them as such.
Do I want the GAFA to have foreign policies? I am not sure about that. I want social networks and IT infrastructure to be just that: infrastructures, belonging to the various countries they operate in.
If Apple is going to enforce moral views on countries and users, I want the board that chooses these views to be elected. Because as soon as you make such a legitimate demand, a thousand others will follow in terms of acceptance or not of hate speech, dissemination of propaganda, harassment, and the various definitions of terrorism.
A way to prevent Apple from conducting immoral actions in some countries would be to accepte universal jurisdiction in some places, so that crimes in country A by entity X can be judged in country B. Unfortunately this has been a thing constantly opposed by USA.
If Apple is going to enforce moral views on countries and users, I want the board that chooses these views to be elected. Because as soon as you make such a legitimate demand, a thousand others will follow in terms of acceptance or not of hate speech, dissemination of propaganda, harassment, and the various definitions of terrorism.
A way to prevent Apple from conducting immoral actions in some countries would be to accepte universal jurisdiction in some places, so that crimes in country A by entity X can be judged in country B. Unfortunately this has been a thing constantly opposed by USA.
Are you planning to dox Apple employees?
That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.
It seems like a little much to call Apple an ‘enabler’ for being against doxing.
Just because protesters use a tactic doesn’t mean everyone needs to support it, especially if it is a tacit call to violence.
That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.
It seems like a little much to call Apple an ‘enabler’ for being against doxing.
Just because protesters use a tactic doesn’t mean everyone needs to support it, especially if it is a tacit call to violence.
Is the argument you're making "if you see someone doing something bad, you should not only call it out as such, but also be willing to do something bad to stop it"? That doesn't make sense to me unless there's really no other option to prevent a much greater evil. I think we're still at the point in this story where normal consumer and media pressure can be effective.
Normal consumer pressure can get out of the way of a nations internal affairs and nothing much else. The number one remedy people are asking of Apple is to back off and be more laissez faire.
I, too, can cheer on HK, whatever that means...
I, too, can cheer on HK, whatever that means...
You edited this a lot since my previous comment, but it still doesn’t seem obvious this it’s relevant.
Is "this" my parent comment ("Is the argument you're making...")? I edited that immediately after you added more text to your parent comment ("Are you planning to dox Apple employees?"), but not after your other comment ("I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument.").
Anyway, if I understand correctly your position is that if people here believe that Apple's action is wrong, then they must believe that protestors doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is justified. Therefore people here should also believe that doxxing Apple employees is justified.
My response is that any question of "relative badness" changes drastically in the immediate presence of real physical violence. If Belarusian law enforcement is out on the streets cracking demonstrators' skulls, it's more plausible that doxxing is a lesser evil (though of course, I have no idea how credible this doxxing is) -- direct physical violence just makes every response more acceptable.
Apple's response may have the downstream effect of increasing physical violence, but only through a more diffuse chain of events, so it's possible to think that Apple's action is bad but, unlike direct physical violence, not bad enough to warrant doxxing its employees (which, anyway, doesn't seem anywhere near as effective as doxxing Belarusian law enforcement -- how many Apple employees have the power to affect this policy?).
Anyway, if I understand correctly your position is that if people here believe that Apple's action is wrong, then they must believe that protestors doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is justified. Therefore people here should also believe that doxxing Apple employees is justified.
My response is that any question of "relative badness" changes drastically in the immediate presence of real physical violence. If Belarusian law enforcement is out on the streets cracking demonstrators' skulls, it's more plausible that doxxing is a lesser evil (though of course, I have no idea how credible this doxxing is) -- direct physical violence just makes every response more acceptable.
Apple's response may have the downstream effect of increasing physical violence, but only through a more diffuse chain of events, so it's possible to think that Apple's action is bad but, unlike direct physical violence, not bad enough to warrant doxxing its employees (which, anyway, doesn't seem anywhere near as effective as doxxing Belarusian law enforcement -- how many Apple employees have the power to affect this policy?).
Helpful explanation. I agree there can be a scale of culpability.
Two points I question:
You assume that doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is effective.
You also imply that Belarusian law enforcement have the power to affect Belarusian policy.
These seem like very much unjustified assertions.
You also seem to ignore the possibility that doxing Apple employees could affect Apple’s policy which is what people want when they criticize Apple.
I am not arguing for doxxing. I’m against it.
However if one believes it would be effective at changing Belarusian policy, it raises the question as to why it would not be effective in changing Apple’s policy?
There is also the point made by the parent that Apple’s people have “blood on their hands”, and are “enablers of violence”.
From your statement about the relative badness, I presume you don’t agree with the parent comment about this.
So it doesn’t seem like your view is representative of the one I was replying to.
I stand by my original comment.
If someone thinks Apple’s employees have “blood on their hands”, then it is logical to assume that by the same reasoning they support doxxing of police, they would support doxxing of Apple employees because they equate what Apple employees are doing with violence. That’s what it means to say that someone has blood on their hands.
The fact that you don’t actually think that what Apple is doing is so bad, changes nothing about the original comment. I was replying to a comment that was far less moderate than the opinion you have just expressed.
You just don’t share the views of the person I was replying to.
Two points I question:
You assume that doxxing Belarusian law enforcement is effective.
You also imply that Belarusian law enforcement have the power to affect Belarusian policy.
These seem like very much unjustified assertions.
You also seem to ignore the possibility that doxing Apple employees could affect Apple’s policy which is what people want when they criticize Apple.
I am not arguing for doxxing. I’m against it.
However if one believes it would be effective at changing Belarusian policy, it raises the question as to why it would not be effective in changing Apple’s policy?
There is also the point made by the parent that Apple’s people have “blood on their hands”, and are “enablers of violence”.
From your statement about the relative badness, I presume you don’t agree with the parent comment about this.
So it doesn’t seem like your view is representative of the one I was replying to.
I stand by my original comment.
If someone thinks Apple’s employees have “blood on their hands”, then it is logical to assume that by the same reasoning they support doxxing of police, they would support doxxing of Apple employees because they equate what Apple employees are doing with violence. That’s what it means to say that someone has blood on their hands.
The fact that you don’t actually think that what Apple is doing is so bad, changes nothing about the original comment. I was replying to a comment that was far less moderate than the opinion you have just expressed.
You just don’t share the views of the person I was replying to.
I don’t know why you would think it’s my argument.
It seems a lot closer to the argument DoingIsLearning is making about why “Apple employees” have blood on their hands.
It seems a lot closer to the argument DoingIsLearning is making about why “Apple employees” have blood on their hands.
You said the "logical conclusion" is "doxxing" them. You haven't explained why, and it's not at all obvious why you would say that. So yes people think that's your argument. If you are arguing something different, you need to explain better.
I actually did explain:
Here’s a real quote from my comment, rather than a few words out of context in quote marks:
“That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.”
It’s obvious that I am not saying they should be doxed.
But sure - if people are just reacting to a few words without reading the whole comment or what is a reply to, then they won’t understand.
Here’s a real quote from my comment, rather than a few words out of context in quote marks:
“That seems like the logical conclusion if you think they have blood on their hands.”
It’s obvious that I am not saying they should be doxed.
But sure - if people are just reacting to a few words without reading the whole comment or what is a reply to, then they won’t understand.
No, that doesn't explain. Why does blood on their hands make doxxing mandatory for everyone that believes that? Nobody has said anything like that except you.
I never said doxing was mandatory for everyone that believes that. Misquoting me and exaggerating what I said isn’t going to lead to a better understanding.
However if you believe that doxing of individual law enforcement officers is justified because of their support for the regime, and you accuse Apple’s team of having blood on their hands for ‘enabling’ the regime, it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.
However if you believe that doxing of individual law enforcement officers is justified because of their support for the regime, and you accuse Apple’s team of having blood on their hands for ‘enabling’ the regime, it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.
> it would be logical to conclude that you support doxing Apple’s employees.
But your comment didn't just say such a person would conclude it's justified. You said the logical conclusion would be them participating in the doxxing. Those are very different things. The list of actions that I think are justified but don't participate in is enormous.
(And by "mandatory for everyone that believes that" I meant that logic would mandate it, which is the same as it being the logical conclusion.)
But even with your new version, just talking about it being justified, well that's not necessarily the logical conclusion. One reason is that their participation is at a different level, so the justification might not extend to them.
And if you go by the motive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 then identifying the police is being done for a very direct purpose to level the playing field on the ground. Someone might reasonably feel that this reason doesn't apply to Apple employees, even while saying that Apple employees have blood on their hands.
But your comment didn't just say such a person would conclude it's justified. You said the logical conclusion would be them participating in the doxxing. Those are very different things. The list of actions that I think are justified but don't participate in is enormous.
(And by "mandatory for everyone that believes that" I meant that logic would mandate it, which is the same as it being the logical conclusion.)
But even with your new version, just talking about it being justified, well that's not necessarily the logical conclusion. One reason is that their participation is at a different level, so the justification might not extend to them.
And if you go by the motive in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24738218 then identifying the police is being done for a very direct purpose to level the playing field on the ground. Someone might reasonably feel that this reason doesn't apply to Apple employees, even while saying that Apple employees have blood on their hands.
[deleted]
You have introduced some abstraction and hypotheticals about how people might reason about this that the original commenter was not expressing. I agree these are interesting points.
It is true that some person might have the nuanced sentiments and tactical analysis you hypothesize, but the actual person who I was responding to didn’t seem to be expressing such a complex view in their comment, and my original reply still stands as a reasonable challenge to the implications were of what they wrote, given the sentiment with which they expressed it.
It is true that some person might have the nuanced sentiments and tactical analysis you hypothesize, but the actual person who I was responding to didn’t seem to be expressing such a complex view in their comment, and my original reply still stands as a reasonable challenge to the implications were of what they wrote, given the sentiment with which they expressed it.
Apple is restraining their hands so they can't fight back while they are being punched in the gut. This is not a peaceful act.
> just block the App store
I don't think so. IT is 5% of Belarusian GDP.
I don't think so. IT is 5% of Belarusian GDP.
It was, before the shitshow
Well, one technical reason is that WhatsApp groups — unlike Telegram groups — use encryption. So Facebook doesn't know what goes on inside them.
They can see the title and possibly the picture, though. (People who know this use inconspicuous names and pictures)
That's just a theater. If anybody can join a group, there must be a way to distribute the keys to those who joined. Anybody can get a key then, including Whatsapp/Facebook.
The app makes sure only the people it thinks are in the channel get the keys. If you turn on the security notifications you can see how it works, you get a message when someone gets a new phone, that indicates they got a new key.
You can even check if it matches up if you meet in person or if you communicated using another medium.
You can even check if it matches up if you meet in person or if you communicated using another medium.
There's also the fact that any of those messages can be reported for doxxing or screenshotted to show proof that they're doxxing. Also, Telegram group chats are encrypted, just not E2E, so they've also likely been reported by people who visited them. They are public, after all. (Which seems like a puzzling approach when you're doing something illicit but that's a whole other matter.)
These new people cannot access older messages. e2ee
Right, if the invite link is publicly available anyone can join.
But a Facebook employee would have to join the group and they wouldn't have access to older messages. It's not like with Telegram, where all the content, including old messages, is stored in plain text on the server.
But a Facebook employee would have to join the group and they wouldn't have access to older messages. It's not like with Telegram, where all the content, including old messages, is stored in plain text on the server.
Can you point me to similar Facebook/Whatsapp groups ?
Because they are usually pretty aggressive about acting on inciteful content.
Because they are usually pretty aggressive about acting on inciteful content.
How about we consider any website accessible through Safari? Is Apple going to start blocking users from viewing those?
I'll not be surprised. Apple always wants total control on their platforms. Obviously sometimes its plays against them.
> Obviously sometimes its plays against them.
Also known as accountability for their own actions.
Also known as accountability for their own actions.
The opening steps of that are already in place. Apple is already blocking content in safari by default. It’s currently doing so in the name of privacy, and chances are that what it’s currently doing is ultimately user positive.
The mechanism is already in place and ready to be expanded to include anything more as necessary.
The mechanism is already in place and ready to be expanded to include anything more as necessary.
I doubt it. Maybe they crack down on an app or two when they feel like it but Apple aren't moving the needle on incitement.
Plus they make and sell communication apps subject to carrying the exact same sentiments. Content policing a chat app is asinine.
Plus they make and sell communication apps subject to carrying the exact same sentiments. Content policing a chat app is asinine.
It's not. They don't allow NSFW apps on iOS even if it's user generated. They have to make it explicitly opt in with significant restrictions.
Apple can do whatever they want on their platform. I wouldn't want to be involved in something illegal such as above when using an app on iOS accidentally.
Apple can do whatever they want on their platform. I wouldn't want to be involved in something illegal such as above when using an app on iOS accidentally.
Telegram is Apple's own platform? Are you saying Apple is involved in something illegal by allowing Telegram to distribute software through the App Store, since people use it to dox Putin-aligned police in Belarus?
There is already a precedent for apple to not allow apps that doesn't align with its content policies even if user generated. Anything NSFW is not allowed by default and without explicit warnings. Porn is not allowed. Drug stores are not allowed. Gab is not allowed. Imageboards aren't. Why would this be different?
Apple owns the app store and the iOS platform. They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content. Customers expect that from apple. I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.
Apple owns the app store and the iOS platform. They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content. Customers expect that from apple. I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.
> They have a duty to protect their customers from clicking on unsightly and wrongful content
They don't.
> Customers expect that from apple
They shouldn't
> I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.
It's parent's duty to protect their kid however they see fit, not Apple's.
They don't.
> Customers expect that from apple
They shouldn't
> I wouldn't want any kid to end up accessing this channel on telegram.
It's parent's duty to protect their kid however they see fit, not Apple's.
> clicking on content
If you believe democracy to be unsightly and wrongful, then your believes are reactionary, and must be subject to rectification.
If you believe democracy to be unsightly and wrongful, then your believes are reactionary, and must be subject to rectification.
In which world is democracy doxing and planning violence against people?
Against people who, by all intents have literally sabotaged an election and installed themselves as authoritarian rulers?
Somehow in your definition democracy is something only allowed to happen organically, if forcefully torn from you by corruption and guns, "oh well".
Somehow in your definition democracy is something only allowed to happen organically, if forcefully torn from you by corruption and guns, "oh well".
This argument is completely undermined by Safari.
> Apple can do whatever they want on their platform.
Actually no they can’t much of the world has laws to prevent such abuses of power.
Actually no they can’t much of the world has laws to prevent such abuses of power.
> They don't allow NSFW apps on iOS even if it's user generated.
Nit: apps may show user-generated adult content (with some restrictions), as long as such content is not the main purpose of the app. So a “porn browser” would not be allowed, but an “internet browser” is.
Nit: apps may show user-generated adult content (with some restrictions), as long as such content is not the main purpose of the app. So a “porn browser” would not be allowed, but an “internet browser” is.
Some channels on Telegram show up as not accessible to Apple users because they "distribute pornography" even in cases when that was not the main purpose of the channel. There were cases when some users reposted porn gifs to group chats, admins did not delete them, then the whole chat got banned after user reported the chat. Notice: it's not even the _app's_ main purpose, they police the content down to specific channels, so the apps may _not_ show NSFW content it seems. I wonder when they'll start blocking specific websites in Safari.
No, Facebook is not aggressive in moderating anything except their PR. It's full of bots, full of disinformation, and full of hate-filled groups. You have to be smart enough not to use it to be naive enough to believe they police any aspect of it adequately.
The worst ones are all private, so they can't be pointed to. But we do find out about their existence after they're broken up (by law enforcement action, not Facebook). E.g. the domestic terrorists that were planning to overthrow the Michigan State government were coordinating via private Facebook group. So there's one example for you.
>Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though?
I imagine that it's through the terms of the contract signed by Telegram to be allowed into the App Store.
That Apple is flexing its market share (and walled garden) to enforce those terms on Telegram isn't even unusual.
But that doesn't make it ethical or right.
I imagine that it's through the terms of the contract signed by Telegram to be allowed into the App Store.
That Apple is flexing its market share (and walled garden) to enforce those terms on Telegram isn't even unusual.
But that doesn't make it ethical or right.
>Through what right or means can Apple demand this, though?
The App Store is theirs and they will kick you out if they don't like you. Isn't that good enough?
The App Store is theirs and they will kick you out if they don't like you. Isn't that good enough?
App store may be theirs, but this is like after you install some third party e-mail client on your phone, Apple trying to force their way into telling you what e-mails you can receive, or who you can communicate with. (by proxy) Surely that's not reasonable. What does ownership of the phone mean then?
They could. They have the power to. Reasonable doesn't enter into it. That's why some of us object to their control over access to software for all their customers. I personally will not buy Apple products for this reason.
That's just why they can. But no it's not good enough. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's right.
Everyone else's iphone isn't theirs though. Apple's abuse of their users is directly contributing to the consolidation of power in the world, which will likely lead to violence against and abuse of poor people.
Apple operates in Belarus and must respond to the pressures of the government. Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off.
Apple has tried in the past, of course. I believe the policy they say they take is “we respect the law in the country we operate in”. It’s not clear if this was something that the law mandated; if it wasn’t to be morally consistent they should have pushed back like they have in the US.
Americans have the right to tell the government to back off when the government breaks the law. We shouldn't hold everyone to the same low standard as Belarus.
> Americans would find it intrusive if Apple was strong enough to tell the US govt to back off.
Are you sure? I remember people backing Apple when they were protecting users phones from FBI hacking.
Are you sure? I remember people backing Apple when they were protecting users phones from FBI hacking.
I don't think Apple has the strength to tell the US government to back off, and I don't think Americans think so either. When Apple goes through the American legal system, that's the power of the American judiciary.
But Belarus?
But Belarus?
That was the marketing, not reality.
The reality was their phone did get "hacked" and Apple participated in PRISM.
The reality was their phone did get "hacked" and Apple participated in PRISM.
To be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime.
There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
You may not know this but the fire in a crowded theater case was about criminalizing opposition to the draft during WWI. Criminalizing speech always ends with the powers that be using it to stop people saying things inconvenient to them. One year it’s Obama prosecuting whistleblowers, the next it’s Trump. Any power the government has will be used and “abused” almost immediately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
> Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
>> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
> Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
>> The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
> One year it’s Obama prosecuting whistleblowers, the next it’s Trump
I agree with you, but I hope you're not making a false-equivalence between Trump and Obama, or that the Obama administration's actions against free-speech had the same motivations - and lack of conscience - as the Trump administration's.
It would be much fairer to compare Bush Jr to Trump - it was under Bush Jr we got "free speech zones", for example.
I agree with you, but I hope you're not making a false-equivalence between Trump and Obama, or that the Obama administration's actions against free-speech had the same motivations - and lack of conscience - as the Trump administration's.
It would be much fairer to compare Bush Jr to Trump - it was under Bush Jr we got "free speech zones", for example.
I don’t care about their motivations. I care about what they do. Trump is a vulgarian, a clown, a walking affront to civility while Obama was born and raised to the haute bourgeoisie but one fanned the flames of war in Libya and Syria and the other has burned no nations. Obama dedicated his adult life to the quest for power and he’s a liberal at heart. Trump has no principles, just a lust for adulation. They were still both the executive. Seek power, accrue power, use power. Stamp on any inconvenient speech.
> Obama's war on whistleblowers leaves administration insiders unscathed
> Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.
> And yet other apparent leaks have gone entirely unpunished or have been treated, as in the case of General David Petraeus, as misdemeanors. As Abbe Lowell, lawyer for one of the Espionage Act eight, Stephen Kim, has argued in a letter to the Department of Justice, low-level officials who lack the political connections to fight back have had the book thrown at them, while high-level figures have been allowed to leak with “virtual impunity”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...
> Obama's war on whistleblowers leaves administration insiders unscathed
> Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.
> And yet other apparent leaks have gone entirely unpunished or have been treated, as in the case of General David Petraeus, as misdemeanors. As Abbe Lowell, lawyer for one of the Espionage Act eight, Stephen Kim, has argued in a letter to the Department of Justice, low-level officials who lack the political connections to fight back have had the book thrown at them, while high-level figures have been allowed to leak with “virtual impunity”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowe...
> you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
one is very different from the other. I agree yelling fire in a crowded place can't be allowed - causes people to panic, because it's not possible to 'unhear' a sound.
But posting bomb-making information (or really, any information) should be allowed. This information is voluntarily consumed, so it has no danger of causing harm without a person acting on said information (in which case, it's not the information but the person acting on it that is the problem). This applies to _any_ information, not just bomb making information.
one is very different from the other. I agree yelling fire in a crowded place can't be allowed - causes people to panic, because it's not possible to 'unhear' a sound.
But posting bomb-making information (or really, any information) should be allowed. This information is voluntarily consumed, so it has no danger of causing harm without a person acting on said information (in which case, it's not the information but the person acting on it that is the problem). This applies to _any_ information, not just bomb making information.
>This applies to _any_ information, not just bomb making information.
Like the information the crowded theater is on fire?
I mean I agree, information should be free, but that's a bad way to phrase the argument.
Like the information the crowded theater is on fire?
I mean I agree, information should be free, but that's a bad way to phrase the argument.
>Like the information the crowded theater is on fire?
Check Holme's quote. It's not "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." It's "Falsely yelling fire..."
Do you see the difference?
In fact, The Schenk[0] case was partially overturned by Brandenberg[1], where that example was superseded by "incitement to imminent lawless action," as it's more specific.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Check Holme's quote. It's not "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." It's "Falsely yelling fire..."
Do you see the difference?
In fact, The Schenk[0] case was partially overturned by Brandenberg[1], where that example was superseded by "incitement to imminent lawless action," as it's more specific.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
The point is that it should be up to the government to decide what limits should be put on speech in Telegram, not Apple.
Well, perhaps, but how is that relevant?
This story is about specifically targeting election fraud protesters, not drug dealers, etc.
>
To be fair, Telegram is a total nightmare. It's like bitcoin or Tor and dark web, it may facilitate anonymous free speech, but in doing so, it facilitates a helluva lot of crime.
So what? Freedom of speech isn't meant to be just free speech as long as it's approved by some government.
>There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
One of those things is not like the other.
From an ethical standpoint, the only limits on freedom should be those that infringe on the rights of others.
As in, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
So what? Freedom of speech isn't meant to be just free speech as long as it's approved by some government.
>There has to be limits on freedom, you can't just be allowed to post bomb making plans on the internet or yelling fire in a crowded theatre
One of those things is not like the other.
From an ethical standpoint, the only limits on freedom should be those that infringe on the rights of others.
As in, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
I'm from Belarus. Honestly, I'm surprised Apple gives a shit. Now I'm worried that Apple can cooperate with local police in case they make inquiry. Am I safe?
Here is the link to one group that uses ML to de-anonymize people: https://youtu.be/FAJIrnphTFg
Here is the link to one group that uses ML to de-anonymize people: https://youtu.be/FAJIrnphTFg
Looking at the video, on the one hand, I can see why that could be a sort of public service against the most egregious of brutal policing.
On the other hand... that AI/ML looks like it has immense potential for wrongful identification.
"AI hallucinating" the wrong person's face into the scene using totally convincing feature interpolation.
In a high stakes scene where people feel the need to fight back, it's not hard to imagine such false positives ruining an innocent person's life.
Edit: If the other comment about people being killed as a result of identification videos is true, "ruining" only scratches the surface. Getting people killed due to an algorithm false positive would be a terrible thing to facilitate. We are talking about an algorithm where the "recognise face" part is known to make errors as well as subject to many kinds of bias (and that's even without a mask); and the "project the face into the video part" is optimised for making the most convincing deep fakes. Especially in the most high stakes scenes, somebody will inevitably convince themselves or others that the interpolated face is really the person who was there behind that mask. Heck, even experts misjudge pattern-matching evidence: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/news/views/the-prosecutors-fallacy "The Prosecutor’s Fallacy is most often associated with miscarriages of justice."
On the other hand... that AI/ML looks like it has immense potential for wrongful identification.
"AI hallucinating" the wrong person's face into the scene using totally convincing feature interpolation.
In a high stakes scene where people feel the need to fight back, it's not hard to imagine such false positives ruining an innocent person's life.
Edit: If the other comment about people being killed as a result of identification videos is true, "ruining" only scratches the surface. Getting people killed due to an algorithm false positive would be a terrible thing to facilitate. We are talking about an algorithm where the "recognise face" part is known to make errors as well as subject to many kinds of bias (and that's even without a mask); and the "project the face into the video part" is optimised for making the most convincing deep fakes. Especially in the most high stakes scenes, somebody will inevitably convince themselves or others that the interpolated face is really the person who was there behind that mask. Heck, even experts misjudge pattern-matching evidence: https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/news/views/the-prosecutors-fallacy "The Prosecutor’s Fallacy is most often associated with miscarriages of justice."
Noone was killed. They are safe. We have peaceful protests. Noone even using something like a bat and we don't have weapons in the arms of regular people
Fair enough. Based on news I completely agree with you. I found no evidence online of any Belarus police being killed or even harmed. (I'd edit my GP message to clarify that if I could but the time limit has passed.)
In referring to identified people being killed I contemplated a worst case scenario, following up on comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737255 "in Hong Kong similar channels were used to kill police" and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737546 "possibly leading to innocent people being lynched or killed by the mob because almost no one will verify whether that someone was really to blame".
However, a bit of Googling later and I haven't found any confirmation that any police in Hong Kong were killed either. Perhaps the HN commenter was a bit overzealous to say so. Only death threats to them... and their children (which is pretty bad in its way).
Meanwhile, the same Googling revealed a lot about Belarus: Shooting protestors with live ammo, horrendous abuse, medical abuse, torture, and some death; it sounds pretty bad there. I can see why doxxing them is compelling and perhaps moral.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/15/belarus-systematic-beati...
Some police resigning in disgust too. That's good to hear.
The possibility of innocents getting harmed due to false identification remains though. Those AI face recognition and deep fake reconstruction techniques really are prone to errors that look convincing. I hope the committed doxxers have high standards of review and understanding, and are able to correct mistakes. I've read enough stories about innocents being attacked and sometimes killed in the past due to an angry vigilante group's lack of care that I think it's a genuine concern if AI-assisted doxxing ever escalates to violence.
I found this article about Hong Kong interesting for how doxxing and counter-doxxing are evolving: https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Hong-Kong-protesters-are-nam...
> "There is power in being able to name those who have wronged you. Doxxing may not be good practice -- the pro-democracy camp has the moral high ground right now -- but few condemn it while the police operate with impunity. Right now, the police doxxing channel on Telegram has more than 242,000 subscribers. As a comparison, the movement's fact-check channel has 60,000."
> "Unsurprisingly, the police have found ways to hide their identities. Since late June, their helmets have had one-way-mirror privacy film adhered to what were see-through visors. Almost none wear their warrant cards or produce them when requested, even under circumstances where force regulations compel them to."
In referring to identified people being killed I contemplated a worst case scenario, following up on comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737255 "in Hong Kong similar channels were used to kill police" and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737546 "possibly leading to innocent people being lynched or killed by the mob because almost no one will verify whether that someone was really to blame".
However, a bit of Googling later and I haven't found any confirmation that any police in Hong Kong were killed either. Perhaps the HN commenter was a bit overzealous to say so. Only death threats to them... and their children (which is pretty bad in its way).
Meanwhile, the same Googling revealed a lot about Belarus: Shooting protestors with live ammo, horrendous abuse, medical abuse, torture, and some death; it sounds pretty bad there. I can see why doxxing them is compelling and perhaps moral.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/15/belarus-systematic-beati...
Some police resigning in disgust too. That's good to hear.
The possibility of innocents getting harmed due to false identification remains though. Those AI face recognition and deep fake reconstruction techniques really are prone to errors that look convincing. I hope the committed doxxers have high standards of review and understanding, and are able to correct mistakes. I've read enough stories about innocents being attacked and sometimes killed in the past due to an angry vigilante group's lack of care that I think it's a genuine concern if AI-assisted doxxing ever escalates to violence.
I found this article about Hong Kong interesting for how doxxing and counter-doxxing are evolving: https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Hong-Kong-protesters-are-nam...
> "There is power in being able to name those who have wronged you. Doxxing may not be good practice -- the pro-democracy camp has the moral high ground right now -- but few condemn it while the police operate with impunity. Right now, the police doxxing channel on Telegram has more than 242,000 subscribers. As a comparison, the movement's fact-check channel has 60,000."
> "Unsurprisingly, the police have found ways to hide their identities. Since late June, their helmets have had one-way-mirror privacy film adhered to what were see-through visors. Almost none wear their warrant cards or produce them when requested, even under circumstances where force regulations compel them to."
>In referring to identified people being killed I contemplated a worst case scenario, following up on comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737255 "in Hong Kong similar channels were used to kill police"
That is some biggest BS right there. Luckily that comment was flagged.
>Only death threats to them...
Alleged.
>and their children (which is pretty bad in its way)
There were never any, alleged or not death threat to their Children. But there were definately peer pressure and bullying. ( Which is pretty bad as it causes mental health issues )
That is some biggest BS right there. Luckily that comment was flagged.
>Only death threats to them...
Alleged.
>and their children (which is pretty bad in its way)
There were never any, alleged or not death threat to their Children. But there were definately peer pressure and bullying. ( Which is pretty bad as it causes mental health issues )
You've got to just hope that Apple realizes how bad this would blow up in their face if they worked with police in Belarus to identify democratic protestors, especially given their emphasis on "privacy" in their marketing.
How would it blow up in their face when Apple's customers don't care?
Apple has handed over the entire operation of iCloud in China to a regime owned company, including all user data and keys (they did warn users that they were going to do that though).
At the same time they do not permit side-loading, thereby handing complete control over what users are allowed to install on their devices to authoritarian regimes.
This is not simply "complying with local laws" as they like to present it.
Apple has handed over the entire operation of iCloud in China to a regime owned company, including all user data and keys (they did warn users that they were going to do that though).
At the same time they do not permit side-loading, thereby handing complete control over what users are allowed to install on their devices to authoritarian regimes.
This is not simply "complying with local laws" as they like to present it.
> Apple has handed over the entire operation of iCloud in China to a regime owned company, including all user data and keys (they did warn users that they were going to do that though).
Woah. I don’t know how I missed this news for so long.
Woah. I don’t know how I missed this news for so long.
This is unfortunately the only way to operate an online service in China. It’s standard practice (and a legal requirement) to hand off the ownership and control of Chinese servers to a separate Chinese company. Apple has been pretty transparent about this.
One could argue that Apple should have just exited the Chinese market instead of letting the local government spy on their citizens. Google has taken that position.
One could argue that Apple should have just exited the Chinese market instead of letting the local government spy on their citizens. Google has taken that position.
They offset that with PR over refusing cooperation with the FBI. A lot easier to be principled in the countries where the rule of law is followed.
And then Apple gave up on strongly encrypting user backups so govs can just ask nicely for iPhone users data anywhere in the world:
https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encryp...
https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encryp...
Apple followed Chinese law, and that’s why iCloud and iMessage are available in China.
It’s a similar situation for Microsoft Teams and Skype.
If Facebook does the same, they will be available in China too. Google tried to do it with their Project Dragonfly, but bad publicity made them stop.
It’s a similar situation for Microsoft Teams and Skype.
If Facebook does the same, they will be available in China too. Google tried to do it with their Project Dragonfly, but bad publicity made them stop.
Is there a Chinese law that requires all cloud services to be operated by regime owned companies? Could they not have provided that service themselves from inside China and comply with the law only to the extent necessary?
Is there a law that requires them to offer iCloud at all if they want to sell their hardware there?
Is there a law that requires them to ban side-loading?
It seems to me that Apple is always doing a bit more than they are required to do under the law. They clearly want to stay in the good graces of those regimes, especially in China.
But I do agree that the problem in general is structural and not specific to Apple. I think there should be something akin to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to limit what those corporations can do in other countries. There has to be a limit to their aiding and abetting human rights violations.
Is there a law that requires them to offer iCloud at all if they want to sell their hardware there?
Is there a law that requires them to ban side-loading?
It seems to me that Apple is always doing a bit more than they are required to do under the law. They clearly want to stay in the good graces of those regimes, especially in China.
But I do agree that the problem in general is structural and not specific to Apple. I think there should be something akin to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to limit what those corporations can do in other countries. There has to be a limit to their aiding and abetting human rights violations.
This is the kind of hyprocisy that chips away at a brand's hard earned reputation. You may notice it's currently the top post on Hacker News. It was also the top post on /r/Apple/ earlier today, surely a haven of some of Apple's biggest fans and customers.
100% makes me what to ditch iPhones again.
> How would it blow up in their face when Apple's customers don't care?
It's very important to remember that a big part of Belarusian protesters work in IT and even in Apple
It's very important to remember that a big part of Belarusian protesters work in IT and even in Apple
> How would it blow up in their face when Apple's customers don't care?
There are multiple of different negative actions that can be taken against a company, beyond just customers refusing to buy the product.
These potential actions have the ability to cause Apple, and their employees, lots of harm.
For example, in America, one negative action that many people are taking against Apple is lawsuits (Apple has lots some lawsuits, in the past, and lost a bunch of money over it).
But, there could be many other ways to harm Apple, beyond those examples. EX negative publicity, people or companies refusing to work with Apple, and many other things.
There are multiple of different negative actions that can be taken against a company, beyond just customers refusing to buy the product.
These potential actions have the ability to cause Apple, and their employees, lots of harm.
For example, in America, one negative action that many people are taking against Apple is lawsuits (Apple has lots some lawsuits, in the past, and lost a bunch of money over it).
But, there could be many other ways to harm Apple, beyond those examples. EX negative publicity, people or companies refusing to work with Apple, and many other things.
Why would this blow up in their face? Have you seen the lines outside Apple stores whenever they launch a new product?
Apple customers do not care. There is a small minority of people who care (like people on this site) but I bet even they will continue to buy Apple products.
We are talking about a mind bogglingly rich company with arrogance to match. Even if this gets them bad PR, it will be forgotten in a few minutes.
Apple customers do not care. There is a small minority of people who care (like people on this site) but I bet even they will continue to buy Apple products.
We are talking about a mind bogglingly rich company with arrogance to match. Even if this gets them bad PR, it will be forgotten in a few minutes.
Not me. I feel like Apple has to actually compete with often times higher quality luxury products in 2020.
No reason for me to buy any new Apple products and after this news, I won’t.
No reason for me to buy any new Apple products and after this news, I won’t.
But you are in the minority. Also, what other alternatives do we have? Google, Amazon, Microsoft... all equally bad or worse. I can't think of any big tech company really standing up to authoritarian (or even democratic) governments, can you?
Not a big one at all, but https://puri.sm is trying to stand up.
I agree. But Google's phones are better (in my opinion), the only reason I bought an iPhone is for privacy reasons - if Apple is going to renege on that branding, then no reason not to go back to the better product.
Apple was banking on privacy marketing as a competitive edge. I think that was a good strategy. Since they appear to be worse at executing on that strategy than I thought they would be, they are losing that segment of the market.
Apple was banking on privacy marketing as a competitive edge. I think that was a good strategy. Since they appear to be worse at executing on that strategy than I thought they would be, they are losing that segment of the market.
Android makers and telegram could make huge PR/marketing campaign out of this.
I mean huge. Outdoor posters and slogans. TV shows.
I mean, this is truly Orwellian stuff, but in real world. Old uncharismatic dictator recruits huge soulless machine of most powerful corporation in the world to rule small poor country. I know this is not entirely true, but people will love this.
I mean huge. Outdoor posters and slogans. TV shows.
I mean, this is truly Orwellian stuff, but in real world. Old uncharismatic dictator recruits huge soulless machine of most powerful corporation in the world to rule small poor country. I know this is not entirely true, but people will love this.
Unfortunately, I doubt anyone would care for longer than a week. The privacy angle is irrelevant to most of their customers.
Is privacy not the main way Apple is trying to market themselves against Google?
I doubt Apple fanboys even know about Belarus, after all the media is pointing them everywhere but where actual tyranny, injustice and oppression occurs.
Weird usage of what’s happening in Belarus to seemingly try to minimize some domestic issue you don’t like?
Pray tell, what domestic issue that I don't like am I trying to minimize? And in answering that, try to not assume the only two places in the world that exists is Belarus and USA.
[deleted]
> Here is the link to one group that uses ML to de-anonymize people: https://youtu.be/FAJIrnphTFg
Wonderful!
Wonderful!
Well, just like apple can auto remove applications that were pushed out from their app store, they certainly can install new application signed with privileged entitlements on your phone that can spy on you without you even knowing. Remember that when apple advertises that "built for security" garbage on you.
At least with most androids you can unlock the bootloader and install something like linageos and remove google services to stop their ability to spy on you.
At least with most androids you can unlock the bootloader and install something like linageos and remove google services to stop their ability to spy on you.
Strength to you, these are very difficult times and the same tech that can help you can just as easily be used against you. Apple is very much in the wrong here but dollars tend to be more important than principles so I hope that this will end well. Be careful!
Curious why dont you use Signal? Is Telegram more convinient? If so, in what aspects? Signal has group chats that are fully end to end encrypted so that noone can demand to take something down because noone is able to see inside the chat (except participants).
https://signal.org
https://signal.org
This is a complete double-standard. Telegram messages are user-generated content. Is Apple going to start blocking websites in the Safari app? I'm sure one could find a lot worse things than doxxing by using Safari.
If China would threaten to ban iPhones, surely Apple will block websites.
The difference is that governments can block websites without Apple approval. But governments can't block app content without blocking the entire AppStore, so they have to reach Apple.
The difference is that governments can block websites without Apple approval. But governments can't block app content without blocking the entire AppStore, so they have to reach Apple.
This isn't how technology works. I feel weird saying something so obvious to me but-
Servers/databases have IP addresses that can be blocked just as easy to stop and App.
Servers/databases have IP addresses that can be blocked just as easy to stop and App.
Telegram uses advanced techniques to avoid blocking. You can't just block few IP addresses and call it a day. AFAIK Telegram servers deliver IP addresses of proxy servers via silent Apple Push Notification. Censors have no way of blocking or intercepting those messages. They can only block Apple servers thus disrupting the entire Apple ecosystem from work.
That really isn't an advanced technique, that's just hiding behind Apple's skirts. The govt is no doubt quite willing to block Apple notifications, and Apple is obviously willing and able to kick apps from its notifications platform.
Russia for example is blocking all ESNI traffic... You either downgrade or get blocked. Which makes the big services shutdown of domain fronting so inexcusable, just kowtowing to China and every other regime.
Russia for example is blocking all ESNI traffic... You either downgrade or get blocked. Which makes the big services shutdown of domain fronting so inexcusable, just kowtowing to China and every other regime.
Well, in the case of Telegram they've already tried pretty hard with the servers and databases route (hasn't worked).
And most servers nowadays are behind CDNs, so blocking an IP might block more than you actually wanted. And with eSNI being pushed, that might become even more difficult to effectively filter a specific service.
We browsers are specifically excepted from the App Store rules on content. That’s basically because browser vendors don’t have a direct relationship with web site publishers, the way that a service provider like Facebook or Telegram has a relationship with their users that post content. That relationship creates a chain of responsibility.
That may be, but it does not refute the accusation that this is a double standard.
Well, yes it does. If you have signed up users with accounts, and you own the infrastructure for disseminating the content they produce, youre responsible for their posts and presence on your platform, and the content you are disseminating. None of that applies to web browsers, or IRC clients, or RSS feed clients, or podcast apps, or plenty of other client apps on the App Store.
It's a double standard in that web browsers are not considered responsible for the content they display while chat apps are considered responsible. These are two different standards being applied just because of a technicality about whose servers the data is hosted on (whether app owner = server owner). Would Apple be okay with allowing a third-party front-end to the Telegram servers? Safari can be that if you use the web app version of Telegram.
Messaging and content apps that are decoupled from distributed back end infrastructure are ok - IRC, Mastodon, email and there are many others. It’s a clear and consistent principle.
Maybe we need a chat protocol that does the same decoupling, then.
Do you think Apple would approve a client app to such a chat network?
If web browsers weren't grandfathered in then they would definitely not be allowed on the App Store and the web probably wouldn't exist today.
Just off the top of my head, Apple allows for apps supporting IRC, RSS and Mastodon protocols. The latter came about in 2016, when these topics were just as relevant as they are now. Adding another protocol doesn’t seem difficult.
They already do in the form of email clients, IRC clients, mastodon clients, etc, etc.
Do they allow e-mail clients there?
So it was fine when Apple banned Infowars but now it’s different?
This is exactly what those free speech advocates meant when talking about slippery slopes: you either support free speech or censure. There is no middle ground.
Disclaimer: I think Infowars is pure, evil sh*t.
This is exactly what those free speech advocates meant when talking about slippery slopes: you either support free speech or censure. There is no middle ground.
Disclaimer: I think Infowars is pure, evil sh*t.
> There is no middle ground.
Pause this slippery slope argument for a second.
The current situation in Belarus:
- Protestors are being imprisoned by unidentified agents in unidentified vehicles
- Protestors are being _tortured_ throughout nightly interrogations
- Protest _organizers_ have been kidnapped overnight and hanged from trees to get the OMON's point across.
This isn't a US politics disinformation twitter ping-ball discussion of who gets to sound the smartest in logical argumentation.
This is an actual dictatorship, with real people and real blood.
Pause this slippery slope argument for a second.
The current situation in Belarus:
- Protestors are being imprisoned by unidentified agents in unidentified vehicles
- Protestors are being _tortured_ throughout nightly interrogations
- Protest _organizers_ have been kidnapped overnight and hanged from trees to get the OMON's point across.
This isn't a US politics disinformation twitter ping-ball discussion of who gets to sound the smartest in logical argumentation.
This is an actual dictatorship, with real people and real blood.
The reason people want guns and freedom of speech is because they anticipate these kinds of situations. With actual dictatorships and everything.
Similar to poker, it rarely goes all the way to showdown. But the possibility of showdown still shapes everything.
Similar to poker, it rarely goes all the way to showdown. But the possibility of showdown still shapes everything.
Seems to work great in the US, where the nutjbobs with guns and "muh free speech" are at the forefront of fighting against democracy and defending the party and officials doing the most to harm it.
Except all the 'libertarian' and 2A open carry 'militia' are firmly on the side of jack-booted authoritatian police and 'border patrol' 200 miles from the border (or port of entry!). Just cosplay death squads and lynch mobs.
Indeed. People in the US are a little complacent because democracy has been in place for enough generations to forget that Dictatorship is the default state.
One difference is that that was an app they banned, while I think that was still bad, it's still an order or two of magnitude better.
In this case, they're policing user generated content on a platform.
The equivalent would be if they asked telegram to block infowars channels, or asked VPN providers to block the infowars website.
I had literally just started to defend/advocate-for apple after trash talking it for a while, but clearly I was extremely wrong.
In this case, they're policing user generated content on a platform.
The equivalent would be if they asked telegram to block infowars channels, or asked VPN providers to block the infowars website.
I had literally just started to defend/advocate-for apple after trash talking it for a while, but clearly I was extremely wrong.
Exactly. I don’t care if it’s Infowars, if it’s Gab, or if it’s HK protests, or if it’s Belarus protests.
App stores must not be political, even if the politics agree with you.
App stores must not be political, even if the politics agree with you.
So let's say I'm a book seller, offering books on a variety of topics.
Some particular country does not allow books promoting religions other than their official religion. What am I supposed to do? Refuse to sell books on pet care or calculus or gardening in that country because I can't sell books about Druidism?
Some particular country does not allow books promoting religions other than their official religion. What am I supposed to do? Refuse to sell books on pet care or calculus or gardening in that country because I can't sell books about Druidism?
Not at all! Just let folks shop at different bookstores.
I want what this guy is smoking because I want to believe the government is using chemicals to turn people and frogs gay.
“A 2002 study by Tyrone Hayes, of the University of California, Berkeley, found that exposure caused male tadpoles to turn into hermaphrodites”
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine
A later study, funded by Syngenta itself, essentially said “nothing to see here, move along”.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine
A later study, funded by Syngenta itself, essentially said “nothing to see here, move along”.
Endocrine disruptors are a real thing[0]. They come from many kinds of pollution. Probably not intentional but they are there.
Endocrine disruptors can cause changes in sexual behaviours and expression of primary and secondary sexual characteristics in animals (including humans).
Not exactly the same thing but this is the grain of truth in what seems like an entirely absurd idea.
[0]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10680769/
Endocrine disruptors can cause changes in sexual behaviours and expression of primary and secondary sexual characteristics in animals (including humans).
Not exactly the same thing but this is the grain of truth in what seems like an entirely absurd idea.
[0]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10680769/
Why does an App Store have any say in the content of an online community? I’m sure there is plenty of content on Reddit that Cupertino censors may not like. Can / do they apply similar pressures to other social media companies with iOS apps?
https://t.me/durov/136
> Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.
Fucking hell, Apple.
----
cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_...
> Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.
Fucking hell, Apple.
----
cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_...
Please stop worshipping this company. It's not a force for good.
They've kicked us out of open computing by locking down the only computer a lot of folks own (iPhone). And now look what kind of shit they can pull because they own the entire stack! This shouldn't be possible!
We really have to push against this and hope the DOJ forces all phone providers to allow "side-loading" (what a bizarre term!)
The iPhone is a computer, not some gaming console. It has to be free for freedom. You should be able to install straight off the web.
And before you downvote me, please look again how much Apple gives a damn about democracy in the world. And look what it's doing because of its power. Double plus ungood.
It's an American device. It should act like it!
They've kicked us out of open computing by locking down the only computer a lot of folks own (iPhone). And now look what kind of shit they can pull because they own the entire stack! This shouldn't be possible!
We really have to push against this and hope the DOJ forces all phone providers to allow "side-loading" (what a bizarre term!)
The iPhone is a computer, not some gaming console. It has to be free for freedom. You should be able to install straight off the web.
And before you downvote me, please look again how much Apple gives a damn about democracy in the world. And look what it's doing because of its power. Double plus ungood.
It's an American device. It should act like it!
> It's an American device. It should act like it!
I don't think what the USA is doing is something that should be followed. See anything privacy endangering in the US.
That's a really random nitpick though and I get what you meant.
I don't think what the USA is doing is something that should be followed. See anything privacy endangering in the US.
That's a really random nitpick though and I get what you meant.
Tim Cook is not a good person.
Source: The people he engages with as he attempts to increase Apple's market cap.
https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2018/04/07/6f86bd65-aefa-4a...
Source: The people he engages with as he attempts to increase Apple's market cap.
https://vid.alarabiya.net/images/2018/04/07/6f86bd65-aefa-4a...
Context of this photo: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/04/08/saudi-prince-meet...
Is that MBS? Never seen him without the headdress
[deleted]
It's a shame that anti-trust enforcement has been so effectively neutered in the US. This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from.
But I think with the current high bar for anti-trust, it can be argued that Apple is "hurting consumers" through the lock-down of their platform.
It's fine that Apple should offer a safe, curated experience of using their devices through the App Store. I'm even fine with the App Store having some OS-level integrations which would not be available to 3rd parties. But the App Store should have to compete on its own merits for how it delivers value to the customer - it should not be the only option by fiat. Maybe at the beginning, but not when smartphones are the dominant computing platform and the main way people use software on a daily basis.
The 30% cut which Apple requires is simply not justified for how much value Apple offers to businesses which drive revenue through the App Store. Again, maybe at the beginning, but the App Store no longer offers any meaningful benefit in terms of discoverability. Losing almost 1/3 of revenue out of the gate can make the difference between viability and not for a lot of companies at the margins, meaning this policy costs the user access to all those products which might be able to exist were it not for the "apple tax".
Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified.
But I think with the current high bar for anti-trust, it can be argued that Apple is "hurting consumers" through the lock-down of their platform.
It's fine that Apple should offer a safe, curated experience of using their devices through the App Store. I'm even fine with the App Store having some OS-level integrations which would not be available to 3rd parties. But the App Store should have to compete on its own merits for how it delivers value to the customer - it should not be the only option by fiat. Maybe at the beginning, but not when smartphones are the dominant computing platform and the main way people use software on a daily basis.
The 30% cut which Apple requires is simply not justified for how much value Apple offers to businesses which drive revenue through the App Store. Again, maybe at the beginning, but the App Store no longer offers any meaningful benefit in terms of discoverability. Losing almost 1/3 of revenue out of the gate can make the difference between viability and not for a lot of companies at the margins, meaning this policy costs the user access to all those products which might be able to exist were it not for the "apple tax".
Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified.
> Even under the current legal framework, I just don't see how it's justified.
In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise.
> This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from.
What makes you so optimistic? In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. (Or, sometimes, the party that is winning the PR battle for the hearts and minds of public opinion.)
In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise.
> This is exactly the type of thing it's designed to protect us from.
What makes you so optimistic? In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers. (Or, sometimes, the party that is winning the PR battle for the hearts and minds of public opinion.)
> In general, prices don't need a legal justification. That's a big part of free enterprise.
Well it would need a legal justification if the alternative is that Apple would be penalized under anti-trust regulation for using its market share to hurt consumers for its own benefit. Even "free enterprise" operates within a legal framework.
> In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers.
I mean this is an incredibly defeatist and cynical view. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change based on the way laws have been applied in the last few decades, but the fact that people see laws as primarily a tool for the powerful - and don't even have an expectation for legal enforcement to operate on behalf of the consumer - seems to me to be a large part of the reason the US is looking more and more like a failed state.
Well it would need a legal justification if the alternative is that Apple would be penalized under anti-trust regulation for using its market share to hurt consumers for its own benefit. Even "free enterprise" operates within a legal framework.
> In practice, complicated laws with lots of reach usually work in favour of the party that can afford more and better lawyers.
I mean this is an incredibly defeatist and cynical view. Don't get me wrong, I'm not overly optimistic that things will change based on the way laws have been applied in the last few decades, but the fact that people see laws as primarily a tool for the powerful - and don't even have an expectation for legal enforcement to operate on behalf of the consumer - seems to me to be a large part of the reason the US is looking more and more like a failed state.
Oh, I'm just defeatist and cynical when it comes to complicated laws.
I have higher hopes for simple laws. And also for efforts to lower barriers to entry.
See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air for a legislative efforts that did much good.
Some interesting thoughts on rail freight transport at https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransporta... If all you did was follow casual online discussions about the state of American rail transport, you'd think it's in shambles. What's interesting is that the deregulated freight part of the industry is actually doing great. It's the transportation of people part that's not so hot.
I have no ready answer for Apple's walled garden. But as I stated earlier, I'm afraid heavy handed interference might do more harm than good, since Apple has so much money to through at lobbyists and lawyers.
For what it's worth, the default historical case people always cite in favour of trust busting, Standard Oil, actually shows the opposite. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...
I have higher hopes for simple laws. And also for efforts to lower barriers to entry.
See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air for a legislative efforts that did much good.
Some interesting thoughts on rail freight transport at https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/SurfaceFreightTransporta... If all you did was follow casual online discussions about the state of American rail transport, you'd think it's in shambles. What's interesting is that the deregulated freight part of the industry is actually doing great. It's the transportation of people part that's not so hot.
I have no ready answer for Apple's walled garden. But as I stated earlier, I'm afraid heavy handed interference might do more harm than good, since Apple has so much money to through at lobbyists and lawyers.
For what it's worth, the default historical case people always cite in favour of trust busting, Standard Oil, actually shows the opposite. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr...
Isn’t a games console also a computer?
> It's an American device. It should act like it!
I’m guessing you’re speaking about the “freedom” meme but there’s nothing uniquely American about freedom. If anything, capitalism tends to trump “freedom” and any pressures to equal the balance (like government oversight) almost always gets heavily condemned. So from that regard, iPhones (and Apple in general) are very much American entities. Not that I have anything against iPhones (I have one myself) but this is “just business”, as they say.
> It's an American device. It should act like it!
I’m guessing you’re speaking about the “freedom” meme but there’s nothing uniquely American about freedom. If anything, capitalism tends to trump “freedom” and any pressures to equal the balance (like government oversight) almost always gets heavily condemned. So from that regard, iPhones (and Apple in general) are very much American entities. Not that I have anything against iPhones (I have one myself) but this is “just business”, as they say.
Yes, don't worship any company or organisation, not Apple, not SpaceX, not Bell Labs, not the United States of America, none at all. Even if they do the right things now, future leadership may decide to do the opposite and lie about it, values may change, goals shift. Try to treat them as groups of strangers that change every few years, not as individuals with a personality that you somehow feel like you really really know.
Still, free-as-in-freedom iPhones? Hell no! I give them money because they are not free-as-in-freedom, but provide a walled garden and defend it for me. I don't think I could do this myself; I know lots and lots of people absolutely certainly couldn't in the same way that I couldn't perform open-heart surgery. On iOS right now it's really, really hard to inadvertently give one's data, money or identity to any random app, and even for people who are not in the cohort that somehow always accumulates browser toolbars, the security measures by device/OS and browser vendors are the only thing that keeps them safe. This is an absolutely huge thing. If they break that, it'll wipe out their mobile products.
I do wholeheartedly agree that they lock down too much and too hard. I get that it shouldn't be easy to side-load software, but making it utterly impossible is a bit too advanced-user-hostile. And this particular action of theirs is wayyy over any line one could draw, and I absolutely think their brand should suffer big time for this.
But taking things to the other extreme – free as in freedom – I really don't see how that could end well. Give the big app vendors easy, convenient ways to bypass all restrictions and they'll make use of it, if only to make development cheaper, and then the small vendors and eventually the shady vendors will follow suit, and we're essentially back at the Windows 95 security model with some permission nag screens that no one really cares about anyway, and then everyone gets scammed and flocks to whatever vendor still has a properly secured walled garden. If there is a way to open things up completely while keeping the platform safe and usable for absolute laypeople, I haven't read or heard of it. Right now, I vastly prefer a locked-down but completely usable platform to some abstract notion of freedom.
Still, free-as-in-freedom iPhones? Hell no! I give them money because they are not free-as-in-freedom, but provide a walled garden and defend it for me. I don't think I could do this myself; I know lots and lots of people absolutely certainly couldn't in the same way that I couldn't perform open-heart surgery. On iOS right now it's really, really hard to inadvertently give one's data, money or identity to any random app, and even for people who are not in the cohort that somehow always accumulates browser toolbars, the security measures by device/OS and browser vendors are the only thing that keeps them safe. This is an absolutely huge thing. If they break that, it'll wipe out their mobile products.
I do wholeheartedly agree that they lock down too much and too hard. I get that it shouldn't be easy to side-load software, but making it utterly impossible is a bit too advanced-user-hostile. And this particular action of theirs is wayyy over any line one could draw, and I absolutely think their brand should suffer big time for this.
But taking things to the other extreme – free as in freedom – I really don't see how that could end well. Give the big app vendors easy, convenient ways to bypass all restrictions and they'll make use of it, if only to make development cheaper, and then the small vendors and eventually the shady vendors will follow suit, and we're essentially back at the Windows 95 security model with some permission nag screens that no one really cares about anyway, and then everyone gets scammed and flocks to whatever vendor still has a properly secured walled garden. If there is a way to open things up completely while keeping the platform safe and usable for absolute laypeople, I haven't read or heard of it. Right now, I vastly prefer a locked-down but completely usable platform to some abstract notion of freedom.
Nobody wants to remove all security policies etc from iOS. I'm not sure what gave you that idea in this thread.
Requiring permissions from users to access data is good, and an actually well curated app store is just as useful.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to install through different avenues as well (still requiring the users permission).
Yes you would get a lot of shitty software if you started installing everything you stumble upon, but the apple store quality would probably increased significantly, because they could deny significantly more apps, as they'd have an alternative approach to get to users that really want it
Requiring permissions from users to access data is good, and an actually well curated app store is just as useful.
That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to install through different avenues as well (still requiring the users permission).
Yes you would get a lot of shitty software if you started installing everything you stumble upon, but the apple store quality would probably increased significantly, because they could deny significantly more apps, as they'd have an alternative approach to get to users that really want it
> Nobody wants to remove all security policies etc from iOS. I'm not sure what gave you that idea in this thread.
I think you misunderstood me there. Of course permission systems are going to stay, who in their right mind would give up this crucial innovation?
But free-as-in-freedom implies that I, the owner and user, can do whatever I want, including triggering all sorts of footguns – if I get tricked into installing CriminalBankrobberApp and giving it all sorts of permissions because I believe it legitimately needs those and won't abuse them, it's game over. A non-free iOS can simply make this impossible or so inconvenient that I'll never bother – an app that actively attacks banking apps on my device wouldn't even get on the App Store I guess – but I don't think a free-as-in-freedom iOS could possibly keep that sort of tight control, not with a 30%-of-revenue economic incentive for everyone else to normalize arbitrary distribution channels.
> That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to install through different avenues as well (still requiring the users permission).
How does the user know what avenues are safe and what aren't? Isn't this just a rehash of downloading software from arbitrary websites, just with lots of app stores instead?
> but the apple store quality would probably increased significantly, because they could deny significantly more apps
And lots and lots of others, big names too, would decide to forgo the App Store entirely (even assuming some loss of visibility, those are some really easily-earned (30-x)% in revenue!), so you'd end up with an Epic store and a Steam store and a EA store and a Facebook store and an app store for each media outlet (NYT Recipes now at the NYT App Store!) and possibly for each bank and national app stores and regional app stores and a CoolBeansAppStore with neat UI tweaks and skins and a SuperDuperAppStore with all sorts of small indy apps and a SuperSecureAppStore that distributes copies of other apps with added tracking and tons of Indydev Inc App Stores, and FreeXXXAppStore that has some well-known copyright-agnostic porn apps and absolutely no rules at all and all kinds of malware and scams... pretty much like the internet back then, but with much leakier sandboxes, because there are lots of things apps must be able to do if allowed to that websites pretty much never need(ed?) to do ...
And good luck with crafting a permission system that makes all of this really transparent and clear and actionable and still isn't a huge hassle that everyone just clicks through and works even for disinterested, impatient laypeople ... That's reducing the depth of security to pretty much this single thing that people hate in its current form already.
I mean, really, I am sometimes struggling to tell what's safe and what isn't on the web, and I should tell, I'm building some of the stuff that's on the web – how is someone who's busy being a lawyer, or is elderly and kinda struggling with the latest generation of gadgets, or a stressed-out parent with zero time for ITSec studies on top, or 15 years old, etc. pp. supposed to make that call that in a similarly confusing environment, on similarly bad data – possibly worse data.
The only reason this works on Android so far is probably that the UX of using other stores or sideloading is so bad; some have tried to establish their own, but churn is just too brutal for next to everyone.
I'm not saying free and open mobile platforms cannot be done, or that there's absolutely no way to open up iOS without wreaking havoc, and I'm definitely not saying that wouldn't be really worthwhile, because I think it would be absolutely fantastic to have an open and free mobile platform – but I believe that's going to be much, much more difficult than just throwing out all the restrictions and calling it a day, because we've been there in the early internet and security-wise it was an absolute nightmare.
I think you misunderstood me there. Of course permission systems are going to stay, who in their right mind would give up this crucial innovation?
But free-as-in-freedom implies that I, the owner and user, can do whatever I want, including triggering all sorts of footguns – if I get tricked into installing CriminalBankrobberApp and giving it all sorts of permissions because I believe it legitimately needs those and won't abuse them, it's game over. A non-free iOS can simply make this impossible or so inconvenient that I'll never bother – an app that actively attacks banking apps on my device wouldn't even get on the App Store I guess – but I don't think a free-as-in-freedom iOS could possibly keep that sort of tight control, not with a 30%-of-revenue economic incentive for everyone else to normalize arbitrary distribution channels.
> That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be possible to install through different avenues as well (still requiring the users permission).
How does the user know what avenues are safe and what aren't? Isn't this just a rehash of downloading software from arbitrary websites, just with lots of app stores instead?
> but the apple store quality would probably increased significantly, because they could deny significantly more apps
And lots and lots of others, big names too, would decide to forgo the App Store entirely (even assuming some loss of visibility, those are some really easily-earned (30-x)% in revenue!), so you'd end up with an Epic store and a Steam store and a EA store and a Facebook store and an app store for each media outlet (NYT Recipes now at the NYT App Store!) and possibly for each bank and national app stores and regional app stores and a CoolBeansAppStore with neat UI tweaks and skins and a SuperDuperAppStore with all sorts of small indy apps and a SuperSecureAppStore that distributes copies of other apps with added tracking and tons of Indydev Inc App Stores, and FreeXXXAppStore that has some well-known copyright-agnostic porn apps and absolutely no rules at all and all kinds of malware and scams... pretty much like the internet back then, but with much leakier sandboxes, because there are lots of things apps must be able to do if allowed to that websites pretty much never need(ed?) to do ...
And good luck with crafting a permission system that makes all of this really transparent and clear and actionable and still isn't a huge hassle that everyone just clicks through and works even for disinterested, impatient laypeople ... That's reducing the depth of security to pretty much this single thing that people hate in its current form already.
I mean, really, I am sometimes struggling to tell what's safe and what isn't on the web, and I should tell, I'm building some of the stuff that's on the web – how is someone who's busy being a lawyer, or is elderly and kinda struggling with the latest generation of gadgets, or a stressed-out parent with zero time for ITSec studies on top, or 15 years old, etc. pp. supposed to make that call that in a similarly confusing environment, on similarly bad data – possibly worse data.
The only reason this works on Android so far is probably that the UX of using other stores or sideloading is so bad; some have tried to establish their own, but churn is just too brutal for next to everyone.
I'm not saying free and open mobile platforms cannot be done, or that there's absolutely no way to open up iOS without wreaking havoc, and I'm definitely not saying that wouldn't be really worthwhile, because I think it would be absolutely fantastic to have an open and free mobile platform – but I believe that's going to be much, much more difficult than just throwing out all the restrictions and calling it a day, because we've been there in the early internet and security-wise it was an absolute nightmare.
> if I get tricked into installing
Do you think that people are incapable of using personal computers then? Just the regular old PC.
This argument falls flat on its face, because it is blatantly obvious, that, for some reason, people are capable of using PCs, and don't explode from the confusion of doing so.
Every single argument that you are making, could apply to the PC. But people still do alright using PCs. Phones should not be any different.
> good luck with crafting a permission system
How are they doing that on the PC? PCs work fine.
> how is someone who's busy being a lawyer
Thats an interesting question. Which has an answer. How does a lawyer use a PC, right now? So thats how they'll do it.
> pretty much like the internet back then
Why do we have to talk about the internet from a long time ago? Just talk about the current internet. Which people use. On the PC. Right now.
> t there's absolutely no way to open up iOS without wreaking havoc
Just do it the same way that PCs currently work. Right now. Because PCs work, right now, and society is not falling apart.
> because we've been there in the early internet and security-wise it was an absolute nightmare.
We don't need to talk about the early internet. Just make the iPhone the same as modern day PCs. Which people are already capable of using just fine.
Do you think that people are incapable of using personal computers then? Just the regular old PC.
This argument falls flat on its face, because it is blatantly obvious, that, for some reason, people are capable of using PCs, and don't explode from the confusion of doing so.
Every single argument that you are making, could apply to the PC. But people still do alright using PCs. Phones should not be any different.
> good luck with crafting a permission system
How are they doing that on the PC? PCs work fine.
> how is someone who's busy being a lawyer
Thats an interesting question. Which has an answer. How does a lawyer use a PC, right now? So thats how they'll do it.
> pretty much like the internet back then
Why do we have to talk about the internet from a long time ago? Just talk about the current internet. Which people use. On the PC. Right now.
> t there's absolutely no way to open up iOS without wreaking havoc
Just do it the same way that PCs currently work. Right now. Because PCs work, right now, and society is not falling apart.
> because we've been there in the early internet and security-wise it was an absolute nightmare.
We don't need to talk about the early internet. Just make the iPhone the same as modern day PCs. Which people are already capable of using just fine.
> How are they doing that on the PC? PCs work fine.
> Just make the iPhone the same as modern day PCs. Which people are already capable of using just fine.
Ransomware attacks are absolutely rampant, though you'll never hear about the vast majority of incidents of course, and pretty much all of those start with someone running thingycorp_salaries_full_list.xlsx.exe, enabling macros for a fishy .docx, opening an infected .pdf, downloading and running infected installers, plugging in random USB keys, and so on. Then there's lots and lots of phishing attacks going on, and that's with most companies already clamping down on attack vectors really hard — if people used private PCs as much as they use their private smartphones, for sensitive things like banking, without an IT department to shield them from the worst of it, I guess consumer Windows would get a lot more locked down really quickly.
> people are capable of using PCs, and don't explode from the confusion of doing so.
People may not explode from confusion, but if they had a better idea of how complex IT security has become, they might at least feel somewhat uneasy. Even people in IT roles screw up and get pwned, or build systems in a way that lets them get pwned easily, all the time really. Bad actors have become pretty sophisticated over the last decade as well, and Covid-19 is only making things worse as lots of unsavory individuals with money and resources find that real-world crime doesn't quite deliver the returns it used to, and everyone and their mother now conduct large parts of their lives through their smartphone and move lots of money through those devices. Personally, I've definitely noticed both attack volume and sophistication going up few notches already.
> How does a lawyer use a PC, right now? So thats how they'll do it.
The vast majoriy will depend on IT people to keep them safe, and their devices will be quite thoroughly locked down, and their email pretty aggressively filtered. Incidents definitely still happen, though. Same with medicine.
I really don't think it's a stretch to imagine people getting socially engineered en masse to install shady apps in a world where each app store and each app requires an entirely new security assessment on little to no data by end users, or apps getting compromised and not get pulled, or whatever. It's possible to solve that quandary, but it's not going to be as easy as just throwing out all restrictions without devising some other mechanism to take their place in protecting users.
> Because PCs work, right now, and society is not falling apart.
Society isn't falling apart from lots and lots of issues I'd consider quite severe. I'd rather not let anything get to that point if it can be prevented.
> Just make the iPhone the same as modern day PCs. Which people are already capable of using just fine.
Ransomware attacks are absolutely rampant, though you'll never hear about the vast majority of incidents of course, and pretty much all of those start with someone running thingycorp_salaries_full_list.xlsx.exe, enabling macros for a fishy .docx, opening an infected .pdf, downloading and running infected installers, plugging in random USB keys, and so on. Then there's lots and lots of phishing attacks going on, and that's with most companies already clamping down on attack vectors really hard — if people used private PCs as much as they use their private smartphones, for sensitive things like banking, without an IT department to shield them from the worst of it, I guess consumer Windows would get a lot more locked down really quickly.
> people are capable of using PCs, and don't explode from the confusion of doing so.
People may not explode from confusion, but if they had a better idea of how complex IT security has become, they might at least feel somewhat uneasy. Even people in IT roles screw up and get pwned, or build systems in a way that lets them get pwned easily, all the time really. Bad actors have become pretty sophisticated over the last decade as well, and Covid-19 is only making things worse as lots of unsavory individuals with money and resources find that real-world crime doesn't quite deliver the returns it used to, and everyone and their mother now conduct large parts of their lives through their smartphone and move lots of money through those devices. Personally, I've definitely noticed both attack volume and sophistication going up few notches already.
> How does a lawyer use a PC, right now? So thats how they'll do it.
The vast majoriy will depend on IT people to keep them safe, and their devices will be quite thoroughly locked down, and their email pretty aggressively filtered. Incidents definitely still happen, though. Same with medicine.
I really don't think it's a stretch to imagine people getting socially engineered en masse to install shady apps in a world where each app store and each app requires an entirely new security assessment on little to no data by end users, or apps getting compromised and not get pulled, or whatever. It's possible to solve that quandary, but it's not going to be as easy as just throwing out all restrictions without devising some other mechanism to take their place in protecting users.
> Because PCs work, right now, and society is not falling apart.
Society isn't falling apart from lots and lots of issues I'd consider quite severe. I'd rather not let anything get to that point if it can be prevented.
> The vast majority will depend on IT
They use PCs right now. As of this moment. They are using PCs, just fine.
It is the existing status quo that everyone is using PCs already.
> I'd rather not let anything get to that point if it can be prevented.
There is not "getting" anywhere. We are already here. We are already living in a world where lots and lots of people use the PC.
Thats what you don't understand. This is the status quo. There are no changes. People already use PCs, right now.
> as easy as just throwing out all restrictions
There is no throwing anything out, because people already are using PCs, right now. Lots of people use them.
You keep phasing this as a "change" when it is not. People using PCs is the status quo.
They use PCs right now. As of this moment. They are using PCs, just fine.
It is the existing status quo that everyone is using PCs already.
> I'd rather not let anything get to that point if it can be prevented.
There is not "getting" anywhere. We are already here. We are already living in a world where lots and lots of people use the PC.
Thats what you don't understand. This is the status quo. There are no changes. People already use PCs, right now.
> as easy as just throwing out all restrictions
There is no throwing anything out, because people already are using PCs, right now. Lots of people use them.
You keep phasing this as a "change" when it is not. People using PCs is the status quo.
You're framing this debate as if apple PR statements "we're doing all of this for our user's best interests" were true.
They're not. They're doing this for maximizing the companie's profit. Which they absolutely don't need to (it's not like if apple was struggling financially, or trying to find an subtle business model that works).
They're not. They're doing this for maximizing the companie's profit. Which they absolutely don't need to (it's not like if apple was struggling financially, or trying to find an subtle business model that works).
> You're framing this debate as if apple PR statements "we're doing all of this for our user's best interests" were true.
I thought I'd made a pretty strong case to not trust Apple's PR in my first paragraph. To clarify, no, I don't think that is the case, and people should be very miserly with their trust towards orgs like Apple in general.
The thing is, no matter their rationale, their product decisions have far-reaching real-world consequences. This particular decision has obvious real-world consequences to protesters in Belarus, and it is a disgusting decision, and definitely makes for a strong argument against leaving them with that much control.
On the other hand, however, their security stance works really, really well, as far as I can tell, and it keeps their users quite safe from lots of harm, and that's something I keep giving them money for, because I value security highly.
Forcing their walled garden free-as-in-freedom wide open will amend #1, but what about #2? Literally hundreds of millions of iPhone users around the world depend on the ecosystem being safe – my mom has an iPhone mostly because they keep their walled garden clean, so she doesn't have to get a CS degree to do that herself, and also because it's a very nice product that she enjoys a lot, but I'd advise her very strongly to get something else if Apple's security was shoddy. As I've argued, I have very strong doubts that this could be done without breaking much of what makes iPhones so secure.
I'm definitely not arguing that this makes Apple's ability and growing propensity to abuse their power a great thing – I think it's absolutely creepy in a deeply dystopian way – but right now the only way to build such a safe environment that I know of relies on strict centralized control, and having such an environment is one of the prime things that make this technology manageable for everyone and their mother.
If someone comes up with a free-as-in-freedom smartphone that's secure, easy to use, has the necessary polish and all the important apps and isn't laser-focused on people who live inside emacs, I'll be happy to part with a bunch of money for that.
I thought I'd made a pretty strong case to not trust Apple's PR in my first paragraph. To clarify, no, I don't think that is the case, and people should be very miserly with their trust towards orgs like Apple in general.
The thing is, no matter their rationale, their product decisions have far-reaching real-world consequences. This particular decision has obvious real-world consequences to protesters in Belarus, and it is a disgusting decision, and definitely makes for a strong argument against leaving them with that much control.
On the other hand, however, their security stance works really, really well, as far as I can tell, and it keeps their users quite safe from lots of harm, and that's something I keep giving them money for, because I value security highly.
Forcing their walled garden free-as-in-freedom wide open will amend #1, but what about #2? Literally hundreds of millions of iPhone users around the world depend on the ecosystem being safe – my mom has an iPhone mostly because they keep their walled garden clean, so she doesn't have to get a CS degree to do that herself, and also because it's a very nice product that she enjoys a lot, but I'd advise her very strongly to get something else if Apple's security was shoddy. As I've argued, I have very strong doubts that this could be done without breaking much of what makes iPhones so secure.
I'm definitely not arguing that this makes Apple's ability and growing propensity to abuse their power a great thing – I think it's absolutely creepy in a deeply dystopian way – but right now the only way to build such a safe environment that I know of relies on strict centralized control, and having such an environment is one of the prime things that make this technology manageable for everyone and their mother.
If someone comes up with a free-as-in-freedom smartphone that's secure, easy to use, has the necessary polish and all the important apps and isn't laser-focused on people who live inside emacs, I'll be happy to part with a bunch of money for that.
> This is an absolutely huge thing. If they break that, it'll wipe out their mobile products.
How? And why? Most people won't care. I think disallowing Telegram to operate freely will wipe out Apple's iOS products in countries where real freedom of speech matters.
How? And why? Most people won't care. I think disallowing Telegram to operate freely will wipe out Apple's iOS products in countries where real freedom of speech matters.
I couldn’t have said it better myself dividedbyzero. +1 to you
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you don’t like Apple... don’t buy their stuff? It’s that easy.
Just go buy a phone running the market leading OS, Android.
Just go buy a phone running the market leading OS, Android.
The market for smartphones is broken, period. You can choose for Apple, which is all about power politics like this news article is demonstrating, they are not here for you. Or you can choose for Android, which is one big privacy invading monster, they are not here for you either. It is a duopoly, which should (and probably does) fall under the same rules as a monopoly: the governments should fix this, the market cannot fix this.
It is not possible for other parties to break this market open. Other parties are relegated to niche markets without any power. Using a smartphone from a niche party will give you a very reduced experience and is for most people not a viable option.
It is not possible for other parties to break this market open. Other parties are relegated to niche markets without any power. Using a smartphone from a niche party will give you a very reduced experience and is for most people not a viable option.
I can’t escape Apple even I would change to Android according to this decision done by Apple against Telegram.
Not so easy, there are arguments that the company behind the other OS is not a force of good either.
Two companies fighting for monopoly, one side saying the other side is worse instead of fixing the system, middle class getting squeezed. Sounds pretty American to me.
Isn't it sad? Running your own software on a computer you own has become this weird thing and there needs to be a specific term for it (side-loading).
The owner of the computer is an individual with root access to it. iPhone users doesn't own their computers, please stop calling them so.
It´s like Apple wants to enforce censorship on behalf of oppressing dictatorships, but doesn´t want to deal with the consequences of enforcing censorship on behalf of oppressing dictatorships.
It hurts their PR. They can't be out there doing ad campaigns taking a dig at the Facebooks and the Googles of the world whilst overtly abiding to the whims of totalitarian regimes.
But it's Belarus, the government is highly unpopular in the West and not really popular anywhere else. And it's not like China where they'd lose a giant market if they decided to stand up to the government, Belarus has a population of under 10m with an average income of under $6k a year.
It might just be about doxxing, but the PR problem remains, of course.
It might just be about doxxing, but the PR problem remains, of course.
I would be very surprised this being just it, the chance of them finding out about obscure chat channels in a country across the ocean without somebody from Apple having a job monitoring them full time is infinitesimal.
This very much reminds me how Google disappeared websites of Russian opposition (weeks after signing some memorandum with kremlin,) and then told "maybe they need to improve their search engine friendliness?"
This very much reminds me how Google disappeared websites of Russian opposition (weeks after signing some memorandum with kremlin,) and then told "maybe they need to improve their search engine friendliness?"
Oh, I wasn't suggesting that Apple monitors them or actively looks for doxxing, but that somebody (potentially from the police) informed them about it, they took a look and concluded that it's against their policy.
I don't know whether that's a common thing, and I expect many companies wouldn't go the Telegram route and publish the demands because they don't want to put stress on their relationship with Apple.
Discord apparently has channels that are used for similar activities, but I don't know whether Apple has asked Discord to hide those channels from the app, or whether anyone complained to Apple in the first place.
I don't know whether that's a common thing, and I expect many companies wouldn't go the Telegram route and publish the demands because they don't want to put stress on their relationship with Apple.
Discord apparently has channels that are used for similar activities, but I don't know whether Apple has asked Discord to hide those channels from the app, or whether anyone complained to Apple in the first place.
For as long as I know, it's explicitly legally forbidden for private parties in US to engage in foreign relations.
So, "even" by the word of US law, Apple has no permission to engage with Belarus government.
So, "even" by the word of US law, Apple has no permission to engage with Belarus government.
I don't think somebody reporting content for policy review (Apple's content policy, not foreign policy) is affected by any US laws. That person wouldn't have to be an Apple customer, they wouldn't have to be a user, they wouldn't have to be outside the US.
I doubt there are any laws that would forbid Apple from taking or acting on a report of content policy violations.
I doubt there are any laws that would forbid Apple from taking or acting on a report of content policy violations.
It probably is just about doxxing, but it still shows how scummy and so far up their own ass Apple is. Just think about the lenght of the reach - trying to regulate what content somebody on a messenger app should post, not even social media platform like twitter/facebook (do they monitor those too? Telling them which groups to have?) They feel like they're creating their own little world, their own universe. And it's not some unambiguous situation like posting nudes of your ex gfs, it's very complicated what's happening in Belarus, at the very least they shouldn't interfere. But they couldn't care less about democracies of the world, if there's a slightest chance that Apple very very remotely might burn - they're OUT. And on top of that they want you to be clueless about it.
Now, take a deep breath, and think how realistic that prospect is.
the Belarus government is very popular in Russia ;-)
With the government, certainly. Are they also popular with the people, that is, would anyone switch away from iOs because Apple stood up to Belarus?
Not only are you forced to follow whatever Apple tells you to do, you’re not allowed to communicate as such because it might make Apple look bad to users who don’t know any better. It’s really a quite inconvenient situation.
That's been a technique that apple have been using quite a bit. Forbid apps to be transparent with their customers around apple rules. This way app users are pissed at the app makers not apple.
The sheer chutzpah of claiming "Apple eats 30% of all charitable donations made on the app" is an irrelevant piece of information to the end-user.
This is the kind of behavior that only comes from a company that knows they can get away with murder, and when that happens, it's time to tighten the screw a bit before things get waaay out of hand.
This is the kind of behavior that only comes from a company that knows they can get away with murder, and when that happens, it's time to tighten the screw a bit before things get waaay out of hand.
Can you give any examples of this happening? Not doubting at all.
One of the most recent case: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/apple-rejects-facebook-app-t...
Interesting. I have always found NDA stuff some of the grosses legal concepts emerging, and in this case it's not even an agreement, it's pure blackmail.
Gotta say, the 1984 Apple commercial feels more and more ironic
This is worthy of the Ministry of Truth
This is worthy of the Ministry of Truth
These must be the Information Purification Directives, it seems :)
To wit: "Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology [...]"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
(Talk about a "walled garden" ...)
To wit: "Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology [...]"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
(Talk about a "walled garden" ...)
You skipped a few paragraphs. Here’s the beginning:
> Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
> This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
So wait, the issue foremost is the doxing. Doxing is against the clearly stated rules of their platform, so they don’t want you doxing people in apps on their platform. Which is okay with me, because the mob (The “majority”, note Durov even cites a very high consensus percentage for us to feel good about it) deciding who is ok to dox and who is not ok to dox is always dangerous for humanity.
Now, Belarus is without doubt (in my view) run by “violent oppressors”, and there is no rule of law by which protestors can seek redress, but the notion that it’s okay to dox people because you took a poll somewhere that included some percentage of Belarusians is downright naive and scary, and doesn’t smell much better at all than the government itself, however true it may be.
That Apple steps in and micromanages at this level is the disturbing element in my opinion, because certainly they’re only doing it because they were notified by Belarusian authorities, but to me the greater issue is the mob justice, against which there is also no appeal or redress, which to me is very scary, even if in this instance it is correct.
> Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
> This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
So wait, the issue foremost is the doxing. Doxing is against the clearly stated rules of their platform, so they don’t want you doxing people in apps on their platform. Which is okay with me, because the mob (The “majority”, note Durov even cites a very high consensus percentage for us to feel good about it) deciding who is ok to dox and who is not ok to dox is always dangerous for humanity.
Now, Belarus is without doubt (in my view) run by “violent oppressors”, and there is no rule of law by which protestors can seek redress, but the notion that it’s okay to dox people because you took a poll somewhere that included some percentage of Belarusians is downright naive and scary, and doesn’t smell much better at all than the government itself, however true it may be.
That Apple steps in and micromanages at this level is the disturbing element in my opinion, because certainly they’re only doing it because they were notified by Belarusian authorities, but to me the greater issue is the mob justice, against which there is also no appeal or redress, which to me is very scary, even if in this instance it is correct.
"Do this or you're banned! But don't mention that it is us telling you to do it, or you're banned, because that might mean our PR team has to do some damage control!"
I think it's a pure evil move. Seeing Cook indeed hobnobs with the likes of MBS I won't be surprised if there's more to what's visible, especially beneath this veneer of being privacy champions. Esp. considering their entire platform is closed source.
[deleted]
Apple fanboy here and I think this is not a good look for the company. Considering their stance on being stewards of privacy and all.
You are locked in, they genuinely don't care about your opinions.
Getting government contracts and keeping a market open is vastly more important.
Plus the whole privacy thing is just marketing, they have worked with the US government with PRISM. They will keep running the advertisements regardless if they sell your data to a government or corporation.
Getting government contracts and keeping a market open is vastly more important.
Plus the whole privacy thing is just marketing, they have worked with the US government with PRISM. They will keep running the advertisements regardless if they sell your data to a government or corporation.
But those notices really are irrelevant, right? I mean, there is nothing I can do to bypass them. It's bad UX, like showing a disabled button that I can't enable by any means.
Having said this, you can still use Telegram Web on Safari to bypass these restrictions.
Having said this, you can still use Telegram Web on Safari to bypass these restrictions.
No, they're not irrelevant. These notices tell people why they can't access certain information. They improve the user experience, otherwise the users will not know why certain information is suddenly inaccessible to them.
First, I do not think they are irrelevant, but it's probably subjective.
Second, them being irrelevant is certainly not a good reason to forbid those notices.
Third, that they are forbidden makes them all the more relevant.
Second, them being irrelevant is certainly not a good reason to forbid those notices.
Third, that they are forbidden makes them all the more relevant.
Spoken like a problematic ux-er ;-)
Visible but disabled items can be important for discoverability.
Knowing when and where to apply which ux rules is probably more important than knowing all the rules.
FTR: I'm happy to work with what I think are good ux-ers so they certainly do exist.
Visible but disabled items can be important for discoverability.
Knowing when and where to apply which ux rules is probably more important than knowing all the rules.
FTR: I'm happy to work with what I think are good ux-ers so they certainly do exist.
Visible but disabled items are only useful if they can be enabled in a more-or-less obvious way. Showing a disabled item that you can't enable in any way is bad UX. Am I wrong?
Knowing that Apple is preventing you from accessing it gives you a way to enable it again: By pressuring Apple to stop doing these shitty things. Same thing with displaying Apples 30% app cuts, if it was clearly shown everywhere likely people would pressure Apple to reduce it which is why you aren't allowed to show it.
Edit: Reading the article again, there is actually a very simple fix to view these posts: Go over to your friend with an android and access them to there, and then remember to buy android in the future to avoid censorship like this. This is surely the main reason Apple doesn't let them show this note.
Edit: Reading the article again, there is actually a very simple fix to view these posts: Go over to your friend with an android and access them to there, and then remember to buy android in the future to avoid censorship like this. This is surely the main reason Apple doesn't let them show this note.
You can enable those items by using Android.
A notice is not a disabled item. It's information. It would only be disabled if it was visible but the text was obscured. 'Enabledness' in the context of a notice is legibility. The intended user experience is reading the notice and understanding more about the world.
You are right this time and now you know why Telegram put those messages there: to allow users who need those messages to go online on the Internet or swap to an Android phone.
[deleted]
Yes
The definitions of "irrelevant" and "bad UX" are obviously very subjective. Personally, I don't think good UX means stripping out the ability to see user intent and context just because it reduces friction.
Showing where user generated content has been censored and the rational as to why is definitely a feature I would want to have regardless of how inconvenient it might be - especially in the context of political discussions.
Showing where user generated content has been censored and the rational as to why is definitely a feature I would want to have regardless of how inconvenient it might be - especially in the context of political discussions.
You can't use Telegram Web if government blocked Telegram website. App have a way around government blocking (they use server push to deliver proxy addresses, so the only ultimate way to block Telegram is to block Apple servers).
It conveys very useful information.
I don't think they're irrelevant at all, but anyway why would it be forbidden for a developer to include some irrelevant information in their app if they want to?
Whenever I was in a discussion on HN with Apple fanboys, who were saying how happy they are with no sideloading of apps on iOS, I was telling them to imagine if Apple will remove the app they need for some reason, like request from an authoritarian regime. In the future I'll be pointing not only to unavailability of chat apps in China, but also to this.
Apple monopoly on iOS platform must be broken, and Apple should be forced to allow third party appstores and third party push notifications.
Apple monopoly on iOS platform must be broken, and Apple should be forced to allow third party appstores and third party push notifications.
That won't work, because governments that want to restrict what apps their citizens use will make a law that phones in that country must not allow sideloading.
The phone makers will either have to comply or leave that country. Either way, the people in that country do not get the app.
The phone makers will either have to comply or leave that country. Either way, the people in that country do not get the app.
False, that currently works with Android. Even in China you can still sideload any banned app and use it with VPN.
> Apple should be forced to
I think that the authorities cannot be expected to solve every problem in society there is. A better approach may be to educate people about the alternatives.
What Apple primarily wants, in my opinion, is to keep their users and their profits. Currently, it seems like they can take down apps for almost any reason, restrict independent repair of their devices by making the replacement parts and chips unavailable, force many simple-to-repair devices to be recycled instead of repaired, take huge cuts from the in-app purchase prices and more, with little to no impact on their sales or number of users.
I am wondering why is that the case. But apparently, most people do not care.
I think that the authorities cannot be expected to solve every problem in society there is. A better approach may be to educate people about the alternatives.
What Apple primarily wants, in my opinion, is to keep their users and their profits. Currently, it seems like they can take down apps for almost any reason, restrict independent repair of their devices by making the replacement parts and chips unavailable, force many simple-to-repair devices to be recycled instead of repaired, take huge cuts from the in-app purchase prices and more, with little to no impact on their sales or number of users.
I am wondering why is that the case. But apparently, most people do not care.
What's interesting here, early today the most upvoted comments where very negative towards Apple, and now that the US people have woken up, the most upvoted comments are closer to have a neutral tone.
Actually I was surprised this morning to see Apple criticized on HN (40% of HN visitors use Apple devices, Windows 21 %, Linux 8% and Android 15% ) as it is rarely the case, the explanation is simple, Apple fanboys were sleeping
Actually I was surprised this morning to see Apple criticized on HN (40% of HN visitors use Apple devices, Windows 21 %, Linux 8% and Android 15% ) as it is rarely the case, the explanation is simple, Apple fanboys were sleeping
Apple fanboys or bots/troll farms? I'm genuinely concerned about how many of these comments are not made by real people.
https://t.me/durov/135
https://t.me/durov/136
I made a post about this. Looks like some filter is taking down all t.me links.
I made a post about this. Looks like some filter is taking down all t.me links.
Thanks. It’s just crazy that Apple doesn’t want Telegram to spell out Apple’s own rules.
This feels like a step beyond the control Apple has exercised over apps previously. Threatening your access to the app store because they don't like the way you're censoring user generated content is beyond the pale and should finally bring regulators down like a ten ton hammer on them.
Once again we are reminded that power inevitably corrupts and must have limits. What a sad state to find Steve's scrappy underdog company in.
Once again we are reminded that power inevitably corrupts and must have limits. What a sad state to find Steve's scrappy underdog company in.
Apple reps told Russian media outlet TJournal that they did not demand channel takedown, they requested to take down only specific posts containing personal information of police officers.
https://tjournal.ru/tech/221326-apple-zayavila-chto-ne-trebo...
https://tjournal.ru/tech/221326-apple-zayavila-chto-ne-trebo...
https://t.me/durov/136
>Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
>This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
>Apple released a statement saying they didn't want us to take down the 3 channels run by the Belarusian protestors, but just specific posts "disclosing personal information."
>This sly wording ignores the fact that channels like @karatelibelarusi and @belarusassholes consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections – because that is why those channels exist.
That’s not much better.
In a situation like this, the only option is to block the channels because a single user post (even if it is taken down quickly) could result the app's removal and being blocked.
It's pretty unfortunate that Apple is willing to support an authoritarian regime to the point of requiring an app to censor its users. I wonder how this came to Apple's attention; was it requested by Belarus's government? And I wonder what the consequences of Telegram not complying would be.
It's unclear why they would demand this, given that Google seems to not need to make similar demands.
This also seems like it encourages repressive governments to cajole Apple to pressure apps to remove user content in the future.
It's unclear why they would demand this, given that Google seems to not need to make similar demands.
This also seems like it encourages repressive governments to cajole Apple to pressure apps to remove user content in the future.
It’s likely requested by the Russian government.
Telegram not complying means it gets banned from the App Store.
Telegram not complying means it gets banned from the App Store.
> Previously, when removing posts at Apple’s request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users. However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were “irrelevant”.
Shame on Apple really. Shame on them for creating a walled garden that has become a liability for multiple parties even those unconnected to the iOS ecosystem.
“Irrelevant” could turn into the mother of all class action lawsuits.
Shame on Apple really. Shame on them for creating a walled garden that has become a liability for multiple parties even those unconnected to the iOS ecosystem.
“Irrelevant” could turn into the mother of all class action lawsuits.
Class action lawsuits are dead since binding arbitration agreements.
By allowing itself to overreach into user-content, Apple is setting enough precedents that it will not be able to refuse blocking more and become a moderator for all apps, threatening any with removal if they don't comply.
That's a very dangerous path Apple is taking, caving to the demands of dictatorial and corrupt governments.
I'm hoping that this move will put Apple in hot waters, at least it should come under scrutiny.
But I'm not naive enough to believe that this sort of action will not become more prevalent.
That's a very dangerous path Apple is taking, caving to the demands of dictatorial and corrupt governments.
I'm hoping that this move will put Apple in hot waters, at least it should come under scrutiny.
But I'm not naive enough to believe that this sort of action will not become more prevalent.
This makes me sick to my stomach. My wife just got her third Apple product. We've been happy customers.
I've been following the news out of Belarus even if there isn't much hope at least the world has been witnessing.
How dare they. This is just appalling.
I've been following the news out of Belarus even if there isn't much hope at least the world has been witnessing.
How dare they. This is just appalling.
Apple has lost its way. The Apple of today is far from what it originally was, pro freedom and anti authoritarianism. They turned into the monsters they set out to fight.
When were they actually "pro freedom and anti authoritarianism", outside of their marketing pitch?
I've been following Apple's outward policy and none of this is remotely surprising.
They have used proprietary devices, banned apps, and worked with governments against their customers.
I can only suggest that either you or your wife takes a marketing class to defend yourself from Apple and other companies.
They have used proprietary devices, banned apps, and worked with governments against their customers.
I can only suggest that either you or your wife takes a marketing class to defend yourself from Apple and other companies.
Why doesn’t telegram just ignore the request?
Saying “we don’t feel like we have much choice” is a cop out.
For those that say Apple is morally compromised for collaborating with the oppressors, why is the same not true for Telegram complying with Apple (the oppressor in this case)?
Yes, Apple could remove Telegram from the store in Belarus, but that would definitely be a disproportionate response, and would have much more of an impact on Apple.
Saying “we don’t feel like we have much choice” is a cop out.
For those that say Apple is morally compromised for collaborating with the oppressors, why is the same not true for Telegram complying with Apple (the oppressor in this case)?
Yes, Apple could remove Telegram from the store in Belarus, but that would definitely be a disproportionate response, and would have much more of an impact on Apple.
Exactly. I doubt Apple would go so far as removing Telegram from the phones of people who already have it, and people who want it after Telegram has been blocked can just get an Android phone.
What next? Taking down Netflix shows that show apple in a bad manner?
Wasn’t there some kind of rule that bad guys in TV shows cant have iphones?
Many other brands have similar rules on using their stuff, nothing special there.
No. Apple just doesn't give away free stuff for the bad guys. When producers enquiry apple if they can get devices without cost, apple only gives them for the good guys. If the bad ones should be seen on camera with iphones, the production has to buy them.
Phones are ridiculously cheap compared to shows and movies. That can't be it.
Maybe Apple pays for showing good guys with iphones, but not bad guys.
threeseed(5)
The 1984 metaphor is frequently cited as a great irony here. It’s a well-known theme however, consider Game of Thrones: a dragon queen frees the oppressed of the world with a movement to make all the societies a better place, until it is revealed that she’s actually just power-hungry and wants to control it all, even if it means destroying it all. Sometimes you have to wait to the end to put the beginning motivations in context. I would argue that the famous 1984 commercial was motivated more by jealousy, that another company was ruling the industry, and not them.
Also it's a company, not a single person, and companies change staff and leadership. Thinking that they're a person is a common fallacy. Almost as common as thinking of the state as one's eternal parent.
[deleted]
Consider also that we get only two points of view on Oceania: Goldstein and Smith. Goldstein's analytic exposition seems to indicate a sound head on his shoulders, and to double check his claims[1], we may verify that nearly everything he writes is, with minor adjustments, applicable to our world as well as to his. Smith[2], on the other hand, shows signs of paranoid delusions[3] and narcissism[4] up through chapter 9 of the fast-forward. Is he an entirely reliable narrator from chapter 10 onward? Is he even awake[5]?
Part IV, Chapter 1: Winston could hear the birds through the open window. Julia already had the kettle on, bubbling quietly, and she spoke as she rummaged for the tea tin. "Sleepyhead, you shouldn't fall asleep while reading. Not only did I have to replace your book in the bookshelf this morning, but you woke me up twice, whimpering during the night. Did you have a bad dream, darling?" ...
[1] Compare ancient Theban warnings about regurgitating a media line without double checking its claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221
[2] One of the drones from Sector 7G of MiniTru. They all went to Nottingham, York, etc., so they're certainly not given any important tasks which could be screwed up, but since they do have degrees they still must be given some kind of make work, and (as someone in the work assignment ministry had only skimmed Smith's dossier, putting it down immediately the tea lady came by, and so hadn't realised the effect the nature of this position might have on his innate shaky grip on reality) they are charged with correcting errors in automatically generated transcripts (given the awful state of their cigarette machines is it any wonder the translation machine is so off base so frequently?), which somehow Smith has managed to Mitty up into a fantasy of rewriting, in the grand manner, truth.
[3] Of course Syme isn't listed in the rota on the office bulletin board any longer. He hasn't been disappeared. He's been promoted and now works at MiniPlen, so his name now appears on their office rotas.
[4] What kind of adult male would run to a woman to whom he hasn't been introduced, whose notion of flirting and courtship reduces entirely to exploiting an (alleged) injury in making a drop, as if she were not a lover but a dealer? One would have to be both immature and pretty full of oneself to not run away from that one, double time.
[5] Goldstein does leave us with the question of "why should human equality be averted?" and so Freud might say that Smith's dreams correspond to his subconscious attempting to answer that question. In this case, Smith's id dreams up an insidious totalitarian grand conspiracy theory (paralleling Smith's waking fantasies about his job) in which the Inner Party (which he failed to join entirely due to his poor A-level marks) is motivated exactly like the bullying teenage (they are from the cream of society: both rich and thick) schoolboys of his author's own experience, as a swotter on scholarship at a second-rate boarding school. This motive really consists...
Part IV, Chapter 1: Winston could hear the birds through the open window. Julia already had the kettle on, bubbling quietly, and she spoke as she rummaged for the tea tin. "Sleepyhead, you shouldn't fall asleep while reading. Not only did I have to replace your book in the bookshelf this morning, but you woke me up twice, whimpering during the night. Did you have a bad dream, darling?" ...
[1] Compare ancient Theban warnings about regurgitating a media line without double checking its claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737221
[2] One of the drones from Sector 7G of MiniTru. They all went to Nottingham, York, etc., so they're certainly not given any important tasks which could be screwed up, but since they do have degrees they still must be given some kind of make work, and (as someone in the work assignment ministry had only skimmed Smith's dossier, putting it down immediately the tea lady came by, and so hadn't realised the effect the nature of this position might have on his innate shaky grip on reality) they are charged with correcting errors in automatically generated transcripts (given the awful state of their cigarette machines is it any wonder the translation machine is so off base so frequently?), which somehow Smith has managed to Mitty up into a fantasy of rewriting, in the grand manner, truth.
[3] Of course Syme isn't listed in the rota on the office bulletin board any longer. He hasn't been disappeared. He's been promoted and now works at MiniPlen, so his name now appears on their office rotas.
[4] What kind of adult male would run to a woman to whom he hasn't been introduced, whose notion of flirting and courtship reduces entirely to exploiting an (alleged) injury in making a drop, as if she were not a lover but a dealer? One would have to be both immature and pretty full of oneself to not run away from that one, double time.
[5] Goldstein does leave us with the question of "why should human equality be averted?" and so Freud might say that Smith's dreams correspond to his subconscious attempting to answer that question. In this case, Smith's id dreams up an insidious totalitarian grand conspiracy theory (paralleling Smith's waking fantasies about his job) in which the Inner Party (which he failed to join entirely due to his poor A-level marks) is motivated exactly like the bullying teenage (they are from the cream of society: both rich and thick) schoolboys of his author's own experience, as a swotter on scholarship at a second-rate boarding school. This motive really consists...
I just wanted to thank you for this comment. I've read 1984 several times, but I'm no literary scholar, and I've never seem to have been all that successful at 'reading between the lines.'
That being said, whenever I read an analysis like yours, it almost always does seem to make sense. You've given me a lot more insight into the book, so thank you.
That being said, whenever I read an analysis like yours, it almost always does seem to make sense. You've given me a lot more insight into the book, so thank you.
Tim Cook’s twitter bio[1] has the following:
> “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK
Considering this and the HKmap.live[2] situations, I’d say that in his case the answer to that question is “not much”.
[1]: https://twitter.com/tim_cook
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKmap.live
> “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK
Considering this and the HKmap.live[2] situations, I’d say that in his case the answer to that question is “not much”.
[1]: https://twitter.com/tim_cook
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HKmap.live
That's unfair to Tim. He's a great help to the world's authoritarian regimes. He's doing plenty for them.
Its his fiduciary duty, the obligation to maximize profits for the shareholders.
Odd how the markets optimize for colluding with dictators and human-rights violating regimes. Such prosperity they bring the world.
Odd how every non market alternative is normally one of those human right violating machines and actively collaborates with them -- far more than those in markets do.
Who is the largest trading partner of the US? China. Also the market is global these days, it is very hard to isolate oneself, without strong policies and market regulation. The market alone is not ushering in new eras of freedom, it's feeding the beasts, and no one really puts their money where their mouth is.
No it's not. He has a duty (not a fiduciary duty) to protect their investments, not to maximize profits.
That is evil. Consumer companies (aka Apple) must work for their customers (citizens). If consumer companies are working to be betray citizens, their customers, then corporations are evil. Customers pay the bill and Apple choses to betray the very people who pay the bill.
You are creating a false dichotomy.
Yep, and that completly frees him from a human decency and we can't criticize his actions of putting money in front of ethics.
He does not have a fiduciary duty to kowtow to Belarus.
Maybe Tim Cook uses that quote to signal virtue and gain popularity for his own and the company brand. Haven't Apple ads used MLK before?
I think that's exactly what latexr is pointing out.
... and he's not the only one! Luckily he makes his deception so painfully obvious.
Using MLK is particularly Machiavellian since it gives the impression that the leader of one of the largest corporations in the world primarily selling luxury goods, is meekly fighting for the little guy and the underserved.
Well, “others” is vague. Tim’s doing plenty for others. Belarus’ politicians are others. Xi and friends are others.
Ah... I think you misspelled NSA and the American Empire*
No worries, easy mistake
No worries, easy mistake
Sure that country can force Apple to comply with local laws. That’s how it works now.
Apple can also choose to challenge it, if not legally there then at least in the court of public opinion as they have done for US government requests. The reason they haven't is either fear of speaking out or that they don't disagree much with the requests. Either way, their silence is a deafening description of their principles.
They US government requests they have challenged are not credible legal requirements, and there is reliable due process to challenge them.
Belarus’s legal system doesn’t afford them this luxury.
Belarus’s legal system doesn’t afford them this luxury.
In this case it is telegram which the government ought to need to compel. Or they could make Apple remove the telegram app. But that hasn’t happened
> Or they could make Apple remove the telegram app.
Which is effective primarily because there’s no (practical) way to sideload on iOS!
This is why I’ve always seen the locked-down nature of the iPhone as a threat to free expression first and foremost. Apple is responsible for setting the system up this way.
Which is effective primarily because there’s no (practical) way to sideload on iOS!
This is why I’ve always seen the locked-down nature of the iPhone as a threat to free expression first and foremost. Apple is responsible for setting the system up this way.
I agree in principle.
In practice, this can be achieved today for a handful of apps with AltStore.io.
In practice, this can be achieved today for a handful of apps with AltStore.io.
AltStore is great, but it requires you to run a server on a computer on the same wifi network as your phone, at least once week. I don't consider this a particularly practical way to side-load, even if it is better than the alternatives. Protestors in Belarus shouldn't need to also be IT administrators.
Sideloading does have risks, and so it doesn't need to be too easy. As a point of comparison, I really like how disabling SIP works on the Mac—the user needs to reboot the computer into recovery mode and run a short Terminal command. This process feels dangerous, but it's really quite easy, and it only needs to be done once per machine. I could guide even a very technology-illiterate person through the process, if I absolutely needed to.
Sideloading does have risks, and so it doesn't need to be too easy. As a point of comparison, I really like how disabling SIP works on the Mac—the user needs to reboot the computer into recovery mode and run a short Terminal command. This process feels dangerous, but it's really quite easy, and it only needs to be done once per machine. I could guide even a very technology-illiterate person through the process, if I absolutely needed to.
I don't fully buy this idea, because I've never seen an app become successfully widespread through side loading. The technical friction is just too high for non technical users.
I agree that we need a solution to monopolistic app stores though.
I agree that we need a solution to monopolistic app stores though.
> I don't fully buy this idea
Apple is currently literally being a threat to free expression in a situation where it really matters.
You don't need to buy the idea, but they're doing it.
Apple is currently literally being a threat to free expression in a situation where it really matters.
You don't need to buy the idea, but they're doing it.
I don't fully buy the idea _that sideloading solves this potential abuse_, not that the abuse exists, I thought that was clear.
I'd hate it if the big players got to take decisions against human rights under the excuse that an alternative technically exists.
I'd hate it if the big players got to take decisions against human rights under the excuse that an alternative technically exists.
Why does a single app have to be widespread to matter? This is exactly the case where a small group would want a particular app because their life and freedom depend on it. They're not looking to put Facebook out of business or be the next big world fad.
This is somewhat circular reasoning though. Apple and Google have deliberately made it impossible or difficult to sideload to maximize profits.
There's nothing particularly difficult about side loading on Google. It's off by default because it's an excellent vector for malicious actors to compromise a user's phone. Users, in the average case, haven't gotten smarter since the days of trojans and malware running rampant under the Windows architecture.
> I've never seen an app become successfully widespread through side loading
Isn't Fortnite on Android an example of this? It was in the Play store for a pariod, but IIRC it was not when it was first released and isn't there again after their spat with Google.
Isn't Fortnite on Android an example of this? It was in the Play store for a pariod, but IIRC it was not when it was first released and isn't there again after their spat with Google.
Can’t telegram be accessed through a website?
No push notifications, among other limitations.
So if an app shows an image of two men kissing, Apple should order the app makers to take it down worldwide because it's illegal in Uganda?
FAANG etc have been kowtowing to oppressive regimes for well over a decade, did you not get the memo? Profit decides, not ethics.
Profitability is not absolute: what profits the best to mankind happiness maximization might widely differs from what might optimize profit for a few individuals
Not worldwide, but for the country in which it is illegal. That is how law tends to work.
Uganda has no money and probably few iphones so probably not
[deleted]
This is a REALLY good argument
You state an excellent point and I would love to see the Apple fanboys argue your point.
I love how people say Apple fanboys like it’s an insult. Is there a legitimate, better option to apple? No because the smartphone market is dominated by google and apple. At least apple pretends to care about privacy. Yes, apple are obviously hypocrites. Still better than google. If there was another viable choice I would happily go with that.
Apple fanboy is not the same as an Apple user. As an example a fanboy is emotional y invested, Apple is part of his identity. When reports of broken keyboards surfaced the fanboys attacked the affected users and defended Apple.
Other fanboy examples, Apple does bad thing X, fanboys defends Apple, class action lawsuit forces Apple to stop doing bad thing X , Apple announces that they kindly stopped doing X and fanboys praise Apple for their goodness.
Other example, Apple removes you the choice for alternative payment methods, removes the choice for you to get informed of alternatives and from this articles seems they refuse to inform people where censorship was applied and for some reason fanboys will defend the fact that all users are deprived of mere choices.,
Some other examples is when the fanboys complain about ads, lootboxes and other shitty in app payments but ignroe the fact that Apple gets a cut of the money instead of just banning ads,tracking,lootboxes etc.
Even people here on HN that should be more competent try to push a narrative that a side loaded app is insecure when in fact the same sandbox will protect the user and web notifications seem to be also some extremely hard concept to implement right by Apple engineers, you would think they have competent developers and designers that could find a good UX.
Conclusion, Most Apple users are not fanboys, I seen them on the Apple reddit criticising when Apple does some shit, so when somone uses the word fanboy he means a person that has Apple as part of his identity, criticizing Apple is the same as an attack on him or his mother.
Other fanboy examples, Apple does bad thing X, fanboys defends Apple, class action lawsuit forces Apple to stop doing bad thing X , Apple announces that they kindly stopped doing X and fanboys praise Apple for their goodness.
Other example, Apple removes you the choice for alternative payment methods, removes the choice for you to get informed of alternatives and from this articles seems they refuse to inform people where censorship was applied and for some reason fanboys will defend the fact that all users are deprived of mere choices.,
Some other examples is when the fanboys complain about ads, lootboxes and other shitty in app payments but ignroe the fact that Apple gets a cut of the money instead of just banning ads,tracking,lootboxes etc.
Even people here on HN that should be more competent try to push a narrative that a side loaded app is insecure when in fact the same sandbox will protect the user and web notifications seem to be also some extremely hard concept to implement right by Apple engineers, you would think they have competent developers and designers that could find a good UX.
Conclusion, Most Apple users are not fanboys, I seen them on the Apple reddit criticising when Apple does some shit, so when somone uses the word fanboy he means a person that has Apple as part of his identity, criticizing Apple is the same as an attack on him or his mother.
There is a segment of the Apple consumer-base that appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. It's a cult of personality just like any other, and pointing out the hypocrisy is satisfying for some, if ultimately futile.
Sorry but what's Google done that is worse than this?
These are people trying to save their country, from rigged elections and an oppressive regime. That's what they use communication for, and Apple shutting this down, choosing the side of the party that stole the election through cheating and force.
I'm not a big fan of Google (nor Apple), but I'm having a hard time thinking of something Google did that is so straight up egregious. But maybe there is, and I forgot about it.
These are people trying to save their country, from rigged elections and an oppressive regime. That's what they use communication for, and Apple shutting this down, choosing the side of the party that stole the election through cheating and force.
I'm not a big fan of Google (nor Apple), but I'm having a hard time thinking of something Google did that is so straight up egregious. But maybe there is, and I forgot about it.
And even if Google did do the same kind of shit with Android, it has an open source base, and there are distributions ( LineageOS to name one) over which Google has no control whatsoever.
There was webOS. There were other OS in the past, as well. Is Tizen stilla thing for mobile? Having used webOS on the HP touchpad, I still think it had a lot going for it. Either way, Android and iOS are all that stuck, and I think we're far worse off for it.
That was bait. Don't take the bait. Only you can prevent flamewars.
edit: oh god look at all these sibling comments, abort, abort!
edit: oh god look at all these sibling comments, abort, abort!
yes. because unlike Apple, Google is allowing third-party stores.
And yes, Google has been tightening the noose as well, which many people rightfully criticise, but as of now, you still have options on Android.
And yes, Google has been tightening the noose as well, which many people rightfully criticise, but as of now, you still have options on Android.
This illustrates why having large portions of the population using hyper-centralized platforms is a problem[0]. A system based around a single point of failure is inherently brittle. While I don't blame Apple for obeying local laws, or even for having a strict moderation policy for chat apps in its store, I do blame Apple for banning sideloading from a platform that's a general-purpose computing and communication tool for a large fraction of the human population.
[0] There is an assumption built in to this that governments censoring their political opponents is bad; I choose not to question it here.
[0] There is an assumption built in to this that governments censoring their political opponents is bad; I choose not to question it here.
Any such excerpt/quote from a CEO figure is just meaningless cant.
I love when hypocrisy like this is exposed, and I would love it even more for Tim Apple to answer that question. Can we start a GoFundMe to have Tim answer it?
>Can we start a GoFundMe to have Tim answer it?
Who do you want to fund? Tim or the Question? Or do you think he should just answer questions if he's paid for it, because Apple has zero responsibility at all...oh right they don't.
Who do you want to fund? Tim or the Question? Or do you think he should just answer questions if he's paid for it, because Apple has zero responsibility at all...oh right they don't.
You want to pay Tim Cook for explaining why he’s a hypocrite?
Well for one, I would love to hear him explain how does commiting perjury benefit the good of others?
I am point to the fact that he lied under oath when he said that no one receives special treatment in the App Store, yet it came out Amazon got special treatment in a "quid pro quo" deal.
I am point to the fact that he lied under oath when he said that no one receives special treatment in the App Store, yet it came out Amazon got special treatment in a "quid pro quo" deal.
Not sure he needs the money.
Apple’s defence is IANAG (I am not a government). That’s fine, but it works both ways: we must remember when observing their marketing campaigns that buying nice things will not and cannot create a democratic and liberal world order.
Apple is not a government? That's fine. Let the government regulate them and break them up.
As long as it’s legal.
Slavery was legal. Everything Belarus is doing is also legal.
They regulate their walled garden like a government though.
Astounded that Apple is choosing to flush their privacy / human rights cred globally down the shitter over the slight possibility of losing market share in the tiny economy of Belarus...
Maybe they risk losing access to the Russian Market too
The Russian market is still small. And the Russians would be unlikely to cut themselves off from the best tech when people can just use it on Android anyway. It's an extremely hollow threat. As Russians might say "назло бабушке отморожу уши" -- spiting my grandmother by getting frostbitten ears (from not wearing your hat).
Hold on... it’s not quite as clear-cut as the Apple-haters that joyously jumped in put it.
These channels are not about a platform for freedom of speech and rallying for peaceful demonstrations.
Nope. It’s about exposing PII of public officials; names and home addresses? Take pause to appreciate the possible consequences of this. What could possibly go wrong?
Now I agree that Belarus officials are complicit or actively engaging in violations of personal freedom, violence and persecution.
But calling out individuals with the not-so-subtle encouragement for personal confrontation and violent retribution is illegal and frowned upon in all democratic societies.
These channels are not about a platform for freedom of speech and rallying for peaceful demonstrations.
Nope. It’s about exposing PII of public officials; names and home addresses? Take pause to appreciate the possible consequences of this. What could possibly go wrong?
Now I agree that Belarus officials are complicit or actively engaging in violations of personal freedom, violence and persecution.
But calling out individuals with the not-so-subtle encouragement for personal confrontation and violent retribution is illegal and frowned upon in all democratic societies.
Quoting https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/the-only-way-t... :
“The only way to stop violence is to pull off the masks, in both the literal and metaphorical sense. An officer who is no longer anonymous will think twice before he grabs, beats or kidnaps someone,"
“The only way to stop violence is to pull off the masks, in both the literal and metaphorical sense. An officer who is no longer anonymous will think twice before he grabs, beats or kidnaps someone,"
That’s true, and I’m all for mandatory identification badges when doing crowd control, but you have to realize the context in which the identity is revealed: in a democratic country it’s meant as a mechanism to correct violent (hopefully) outliers.
But unmasking violent agents of a violent state won’t do anything except provide the excuse to repress even harder... you’ll just end up with riot police firing live ammo (a bit like in the US, where police will always claim the victim appeared to reach for a weapon before they start hailing bullets.)
It’s simple power game: if you challenge a bully that is much stronger than you, you will be crushed. If you really want to make a dent, you collect the evidence and plea for help from a stronger one. (EU, UN, ICJ...)
Unless the objective is to provoke a violent reaction and use the bruises to mobilize help in sympathy (problem is who “gets to suffer the bruise”... you, or a random protestor caught in a retaliatory strike)
But unmasking violent agents of a violent state won’t do anything except provide the excuse to repress even harder... you’ll just end up with riot police firing live ammo (a bit like in the US, where police will always claim the victim appeared to reach for a weapon before they start hailing bullets.)
It’s simple power game: if you challenge a bully that is much stronger than you, you will be crushed. If you really want to make a dent, you collect the evidence and plea for help from a stronger one. (EU, UN, ICJ...)
Unless the objective is to provoke a violent reaction and use the bruises to mobilize help in sympathy (problem is who “gets to suffer the bruise”... you, or a random protestor caught in a retaliatory strike)
> in a democratic country it’s meant as a mechanism to correct violent (hopefully) outliers.
But unmasking violent agents of a violent state won’t do anything except provide the excuse to repress even harder...
Knowing who breaks the law and applies violence to civil protesters will allow to have a fair trial later.
Knowing who breaks the law and applies violence to civil protesters will allow to have a fair trial later.
> It’s about exposing PII of public officials; names and home addresses? Take pause to appreciate the possible consequences of this. What could possibly go wrong?
Why should official working for public money be anonymous? If they have the power to apply force to public, it will not end well (and this is what is happening).
Why should official working for public money be anonymous? If they have the power to apply force to public, it will not end well (and this is what is happening).
[deleted]
"But it isn't nice to doxx the killers" is not the argument I was expecting.
The question is who is responsible for inciting violence? The people that post the messages, telegram for allowing people using their platform to post some messages, or apple for allowing an app to allow it's users to post a message. Why does apple have anything to say in this matter. It sounds crazy to me.
Or maybe, who knows, the violence is being caused by an opressive regime. Since Apple feels it as the right to interveen is it also taking actions agains the Belarus government?
Apple please let me know to which mail should I start sending the mail messages I send from my macbook, so I can get your approval.
Or maybe, who knows, the violence is being caused by an opressive regime. Since Apple feels it as the right to interveen is it also taking actions agains the Belarus government?
Apple please let me know to which mail should I start sending the mail messages I send from my macbook, so I can get your approval.
I don't get why American companies seem to regularly align themselves with authority like this. Apple has more yearly profits than the GDP of Belarus. Why does Apple play by the rules of Belarus. Honestly, if I had the power and influence of Apple I'd run my business in these third world sections of the world just like I run them in America. Arguably Apple has more weight on people in these regions than local governments do.
Stand up and do what's right. You're an American company doing the bidding of a corrupt organization that's not even as big as you are. Grow a pair.
Stand up and do what's right. You're an American company doing the bidding of a corrupt organization that's not even as big as you are. Grow a pair.
This specific censorship probably has the weight if Russia behind it. Not just Belarus.
Still play hard ball. Apple built the largest corporate entity on Earth guided by capitalism and the rule and spirit of American law.
In the absence of local rule of law, or local laws which are incompatible with the American moral outlook on human rights and civil liberties I would instruct my company to observe American laws. If Iran doesn't like that let Iran figure out a way to stop me locally. I am under no pressure to implement immoral company policies to support something which ultimately goes against the system which enabled my business to thrive.
Apple is big enough to completely disregard an authoritarian regimes wishes and get away with it.
Imagine a world where the big tech companies actually has morals that they upheld. The cost of doing business in China is they're going to steal your proprietary tech. Everyone accepts that cost and still does business with China. Imagine if American companies enforced human rights with the same viritol. The world would be positively incentivized to adopt legitimate democracy or fall by the technological wayside.
In the absence of local rule of law, or local laws which are incompatible with the American moral outlook on human rights and civil liberties I would instruct my company to observe American laws. If Iran doesn't like that let Iran figure out a way to stop me locally. I am under no pressure to implement immoral company policies to support something which ultimately goes against the system which enabled my business to thrive.
Apple is big enough to completely disregard an authoritarian regimes wishes and get away with it.
Imagine a world where the big tech companies actually has morals that they upheld. The cost of doing business in China is they're going to steal your proprietary tech. Everyone accepts that cost and still does business with China. Imagine if American companies enforced human rights with the same viritol. The world would be positively incentivized to adopt legitimate democracy or fall by the technological wayside.
The App Store is unraveling! What has Apple done on Facebook or Twitter? Is the matter that those platforms have some kind of content moderation that answers to governments and Telegram does not (so Apple becomes an intermediary)?
With all the talk about how Apple cares about human rights, the CEO and senior management seem to be there as bystanders.
With all the talk about how Apple cares about human rights, the CEO and senior management seem to be there as bystanders.
We need diversity in App stores. I installed F-droid for android, has almost all the apps I need.
Provide the users with choices! You own the hardware, not the company!
Provide the users with choices! You own the hardware, not the company!
Diversity in app stores are good, but keep in mind F-droid chose to censor Gab.
F droid has an easy way to add custom repos though
Facebook gets special treatment because if iPhones don’t have Fb, Instagram and WhatsApp, people stop buying iPhones.
Case in point: digital fundraisers on Facebook are not subject to Apple’s 30% tax, via a special COVID exemption until the end of the year.
Case in point: digital fundraisers on Facebook are not subject to Apple’s 30% tax, via a special COVID exemption until the end of the year.
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Make no mistake, Apple is a very powerful company.
I have admired this company as an aspiring kid growing up in a city in India. It had stories, dreamy stories, things I believed in.
Now it's all money and absolute control. The very things I consider harmful to society. This is no longer that Apple. And, yes 1984.
Make no mistake, Apple is a very powerful company.
I have admired this company as an aspiring kid growing up in a city in India. It had stories, dreamy stories, things I believed in.
Now it's all money and absolute control. The very things I consider harmful to society. This is no longer that Apple. And, yes 1984.
It's almost like it's a bad idea to run hardware and software that prevents you from running software they don't approve.
As we keep on seeing time, and time, and time again.
As we keep on seeing time, and time, and time again.
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130
Oh. I missed that. Thanks!
This surely isn't going to play well in the upcoming court case v Epic.
Employees, how do you feel about this? This isn’t “iTunes is still hard to use”, this is helping to shut down people who are fighting against fascism.
This is obscene overreach by Apple. I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but Apple using their power as the distributor of Telegram's app to censor legal user-generated content on the platform is just outrageous.
Add this incident to the rapidly growing body of evidence proving every privacy advocate's arguments against centralized systems. Some time soon I hope the tech community finds its way back to federated/p2p modes of distribution and communication so we can make this kind of censorship -- and the companies which enforce it -- a thing of the past.
Add this incident to the rapidly growing body of evidence proving every privacy advocate's arguments against centralized systems. Some time soon I hope the tech community finds its way back to federated/p2p modes of distribution and communication so we can make this kind of censorship -- and the companies which enforce it -- a thing of the past.
And this is why walled gardens are structurally wrong. As soon as you have one you take implicit responsibility for what goes on in there and you will be forced to take sides in large scale disputes.
What serves the people of Belarus at the moment (and I know some people on the ground there that have had terrible things done to them at the hands of the governments goons) does not serve Apple because their terms of service did not in any way foresee the kind of situation that Belarus finds itself in.
As soon as you step in to an argument like that you may find that your precious principles are going to be tested like they have never been tested before. And Apple just came up wanting, the Belarus authorities are a criminal bunch and do not deserve the protections normally afforded to individuals acting on behalf of the state. They are facing off with the population from the comfort of anonymity, beat them, rape them and sometimes even kill them. Having them identified makes them at least moderately responsible for their actions, and Apple has absolutely no business interfering in this.
What serves the people of Belarus at the moment (and I know some people on the ground there that have had terrible things done to them at the hands of the governments goons) does not serve Apple because their terms of service did not in any way foresee the kind of situation that Belarus finds itself in.
As soon as you step in to an argument like that you may find that your precious principles are going to be tested like they have never been tested before. And Apple just came up wanting, the Belarus authorities are a criminal bunch and do not deserve the protections normally afforded to individuals acting on behalf of the state. They are facing off with the population from the comfort of anonymity, beat them, rape them and sometimes even kill them. Having them identified makes them at least moderately responsible for their actions, and Apple has absolutely no business interfering in this.
We need a better OS, similar to Ubuntu and Firefox models... an OS developed and maintained by the community that won’t do what every the government asks them to do because it’s in the governments or corporations best interest and not the people’s. I often hear the phrase “we are many” but many means nothing if you use tools that the people in control, control.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Librem_5 and https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/.
Nice TY
Apple really wants to fight a battle over their storey don't they? It looks like the actively make a case for a lex Apple.
Apple gets high on their power. Toxic ecosystem and one to avoid.
Apple licks the boot every day.
In that line of thinking, isn't Apple the boot? Or even the person wearing the boot?
Regardless of your opinion on whether it's acceptable, given what is happening in Belarus, that the protestors are working to identify riot police as a way to "fight back"....it's quite interesting (to me at least) that Apple is trying to direct the actions of an app developer after users have already installed that application. Is Apple now the arbitrator of "what computations are allowable on the device you purchased"?
The problem is not that a private company can prevent democracy, the problem is that said company is also the only choice when it comes to free speech and communication.
There is something terribly wrong here. Imagine Microsoft asking Facebook to block access to some Facebook groups for Windows/IE users. Yes Telegram is on the AppStore distributed by Apple, but it's a free app, just a enhanced web app. Apple wants to have control on what you know, what you see, what you think. I'm not going to buy an Apple product any time soon, despite the hardware and software being the best you can get.
No. Imagine a pro-Trump alt-right group identifying participants to BLM marches and sharing their names and addresses with their gun-toting mouth-frothing associated.
Would you be surprised if it devolved into threats, intimidations and people getting shot?
Would you be surprised if it devolved into threats, intimidations and people getting shot?
> gun-toting mouth-frothing associated
I'd like to plea, not specifically to you but more in general: if each of us can tone down the rhetoric, even a tiny bit, we might become able to relate to each other just slightly more and not to add more weight to the huge wedge of partisonship that divides everyone from their neighbor.
I'd like to plea, not specifically to you but more in general: if each of us can tone down the rhetoric, even a tiny bit, we might become able to relate to each other just slightly more and not to add more weight to the huge wedge of partisonship that divides everyone from their neighbor.
You won't see this article on "tech journalism" websites. They will instead talk about how the upcoming iPhone 12 will be the best iPhone yet.
Seems like Apple only asks to delete specific messages and not the channel itself. Mind you RT is obviously not 100 credible.
But this story lack sources anyway.
https://www.rt.com/russia/503030-apple-telegram-delete-chann...
The relevant piece is this: "Apple is requesting that Telegram shut down three channels used in Belarus to expose the identities of individuals belonging to the Belarusian authoritarian regime that may be oppressing civilians"
Exposing identities of individuals is problematic. There are examples of bad things happening when these kind of messages spread through messaging apps.
Exposing identities of individuals is problematic. There are examples of bad things happening when these kind of messages spread through messaging apps.
Exposing identities is indeed a very wide spectrum, ranging from identities of sentenced terrorists (nobody'd question that, usually the legalities revolve around the concept of "public figure" which greenlights a lot of publication that would not be allowed about just any random person) on one extreme to identities of people who were found voting for X in an illegal interception of mail ballots on the other extreme.
It doesn't really matter where exactly Apple would draw a line, from absurd extremes like "you are free to talk about Roman officials infamous for sentencing innocents to the cross, but please do so without mentioning PII" when someone types in Pontius Pilate, to pragmatic, maybe even lazy "don't use the channel for illegal communications (but we can't really police them)". But they should at least try to be somewhat consistent about it and, even more importantly (but much easier!), by no means require secrecy. A secrecy requirement is just lame and reeks of foul play, horribly.
It doesn't really matter where exactly Apple would draw a line, from absurd extremes like "you are free to talk about Roman officials infamous for sentencing innocents to the cross, but please do so without mentioning PII" when someone types in Pontius Pilate, to pragmatic, maybe even lazy "don't use the channel for illegal communications (but we can't really police them)". But they should at least try to be somewhat consistent about it and, even more importantly (but much easier!), by no means require secrecy. A secrecy requirement is just lame and reeks of foul play, horribly.
Apple is no relevant party in this conflict. This should be a case between the people who are allegedly being doxxed (who go to the police) and the alleged doxxers.
This stuff Apple does is what happens when someone gets on a power trip. What they gonna do next, attemp to censor forums available in Safari?
This stuff Apple does is what happens when someone gets on a power trip. What they gonna do next, attemp to censor forums available in Safari?
[deleted]
A problem hk faced as well. But to threat to shut down telegram is not the right move. You do not kill a platform.
Don't be so optimistic. Apple and Google are a duopoly to control mobile messaging (outside of China).
Not for me, I use a Linux phone (Sailfish OS) with no Google. Not for real activists (criminals in the eyes es of oppressive governments like Chaina, Belarus, Russia, Iran, Turkey, ...) who will always find their way. But for 98% of any population.
Not for me, I use a Linux phone (Sailfish OS) with no Google. Not for real activists (criminals in the eyes es of oppressive governments like Chaina, Belarus, Russia, Iran, Turkey, ...) who will always find their way. But for 98% of any population.
Allowing sideloading for Android makes Google much harder to control the platform. I’d not be surprised though if sideloading would be not allowed in the future.
I don't see them disallowing side-loading soon but what I do expect is an expansion of the SafetyNet [1] test which will flag devices with any side-loaded software as 'suspicious', upon which banking and electronic ID apps will refuse to run. Since this will render the device all but useless for many people it will either force them to carry two devices - one for such 'official' stuff, the other for the rest - or to try to find a way around SafetyNet. This is a cat-and-mouse game which has been going on for a number of years and will continue to do so until either Google goes full Apple by locking down the platform or some sort of 'safe enclave' is created which can run on any device no matter its status. Google clamping down too hard will give extra impetus to the further development of alternative mobile operating systems, the viability of which increases with the rise of web-based alternatives for native apps.
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/safetynet-hardware-attestatio...
[1] https://www.xda-developers.com/safetynet-hardware-attestatio...
Not really. Normal people don't sideload. The people who do know how to sideload aren't in danger of getting forced by the monopolies anyways because they're tech-savyy enough.
It is interesting that people don't think that their western governments are oppressive too. In fact they are slowly adopting techniques used in China and other countries who try them first. People are the same everywhere. They want power and those who take pleasure from harming others get to find their way into governments.
> I use a Linux phone (Sailfish OS)
Seems funny: proprietary OS plus the company cooperate with Russian government.
Seems funny: proprietary OS plus the company cooperate with Russian government.
Well, I know, it's far from ideal in many senses.
But not in a sense that Google or Apple would directly decide what I cannot see.
Indirectly they already do, because a lot of public and commercial services, banking, public transport tickets, corona tracking are available only via those. But that's because the general public does not understand the threats of being dependent on the duopoly.
But not in a sense that Google or Apple would directly decide what I cannot see.
Indirectly they already do, because a lot of public and commercial services, banking, public transport tickets, corona tracking are available only via those. But that's because the general public does not understand the threats of being dependent on the duopoly.
So the solution would be to block that channel on Apple devices? And maybe noting that Apple made them block it.
Apple prohibit them from saying that Apple made them block it because it's "irrelevant". So they must censor those message without any info to the user so the user won't know Apple is oppressing them.
Does Apple have a strong user base in Belarus? I don't think many protestors can afford their devices.
Belarus is a developed (if not particularly rich) country, it's a dangerous fallacy to think only third world can have dictatorships.
https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/belaru...
15%, which is a pretty big number.
I know I am two days late but anyway, if anyone is not familiar with what is going on in Belarus, this reporter is doing superb job on twitter: https://twitter.com/franakviacorka
Apple bans RSS in China
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/30/apple-removes-two-rss-feed...
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/30/apple-removes-two-rss-feed...
Interesting to note - downloads from the App Store are much lower than from Google Play.
In belarus it’s about 3 to 1. Globally it’s about 10 to 1.
This isn’t to say any of this is good, but I wonder if Telegram can behave differently by platform (ex. A blacklist of channels on iOS).
In belarus it’s about 3 to 1. Globally it’s about 10 to 1.
This isn’t to say any of this is good, but I wonder if Telegram can behave differently by platform (ex. A blacklist of channels on iOS).
[deleted]
[deleted]
There sure do seem to be a lot of attacks on “centralized app stores” these days. Wonder who is standing to gain from this. Interesting how it only came about so heavily after the US targeted Huawei...
But what do I know
But what do I know
It seems a surprise Apple and Telegram can't find a better compromise from a global perspective. Bear in mind they're being pushed around by a country of just 9.5m people.
It is not possible to communicate on iOS without risk of being censored or attacked.
Using these platforms is responsible, if it doesn't affect you it will affect vulnerable people.
Using these platforms is responsible, if it doesn't affect you it will affect vulnerable people.
People will never learn: don't buy Apple products. You're locking yourself in. It's your own damn fault you bought their device. It's their device and their OS. They can and will dictate whatever they like.
If you're doing something that hurts their bottom line, don't be surprised when they take measures to curtail those actions. They're a company.
If you don't want to support their actions, don't buy their products. It's that simple. Maybe the Belarussians concerned by this can now actually get rid of their Apple products and buy something else.
Does the desktop app support groups? If it does, then get the desktop app.
If you're doing something that hurts their bottom line, don't be surprised when they take measures to curtail those actions. They're a company.
If you don't want to support their actions, don't buy their products. It's that simple. Maybe the Belarussians concerned by this can now actually get rid of their Apple products and buy something else.
Does the desktop app support groups? If it does, then get the desktop app.
Or you just buy something else for that exact period, in addition to apple. If you go to a war, do you get yourself a gun or just walk there in your kitchen gloves? If you want to make a tasty omelet, do you put your bulletproof vest on?
Why should one product be the answer to all situations? You know that apple is a walled garden. You know that walled gardens have their limits of usage. How does that mean that walls must be destroyed? It is non-sequitur.
Saying that apple interferes with your freedom is like saying a kitchen glove interferes with your right to defend against a knife. It is just an instrument with a narrow usage area, which may or may not fit your current needs.
Let's suppose that I don't support apple's political stances on many things for various reasons, but I will buy new iphone once it is out, because I see value in it. Not surprised if it fails at uprisings, not a problem, that simple. Where the flaw is?
Why should one product be the answer to all situations? You know that apple is a walled garden. You know that walled gardens have their limits of usage. How does that mean that walls must be destroyed? It is non-sequitur.
Saying that apple interferes with your freedom is like saying a kitchen glove interferes with your right to defend against a knife. It is just an instrument with a narrow usage area, which may or may not fit your current needs.
Let's suppose that I don't support apple's political stances on many things for various reasons, but I will buy new iphone once it is out, because I see value in it. Not surprised if it fails at uprisings, not a problem, that simple. Where the flaw is?
These issues are unrelated, or: it's not a choice between Apple and freedom.
First, yes, buying iOS is a partial lock-in. But so is almost every other consumer choice: only if you stick to FOSS and open document formats, and are technical enough to convert your own documents once your apps are no longer supported, you may consider yourself free. Otherwise, lock-in is a given.
The lock-in isn't full, either: pictures, email, videos, bookmarks, etc. can be exported to other devices.
Second: if you buy Apple, you don't give up the right to protest them. Since the company depends on its customers, pressure can be effective. This is in contrast with free products, where customer pressure can turn counter-productive.
First, yes, buying iOS is a partial lock-in. But so is almost every other consumer choice: only if you stick to FOSS and open document formats, and are technical enough to convert your own documents once your apps are no longer supported, you may consider yourself free. Otherwise, lock-in is a given.
The lock-in isn't full, either: pictures, email, videos, bookmarks, etc. can be exported to other devices.
Second: if you buy Apple, you don't give up the right to protest them. Since the company depends on its customers, pressure can be effective. This is in contrast with free products, where customer pressure can turn counter-productive.
Never thought a news site can manage to place so many ads on my small iPhone screen. It's unreadable. Do you know what is the original source for this?
There's the petition "Asking Apple to not block Telegram channels of Belarusian peaceful protest"
https://www.change.org/p/apple-asking-apple-to-not-block-tel...
Yesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130
https://www.change.org/p/apple-asking-apple-to-not-block-tel...
Yesterday's discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24722130
Tangentially, I’ve always wondered if the change.org petitions work and if they even reach the people who they’re addressed to in a way that the petition is seen.
Would Signal be a good replacement in this case?
According to Signal's help page:
>The size limit is 150 members.
The affected channels on Telegram have tens of thousands of members and it's not possible to directly post to the timeline.
>The size limit is 150 members.
The affected channels on Telegram have tens of thousands of members and it's not possible to directly post to the timeline.
Signal would be the same sort of thing. Perhaps you meant something with no central contral like a XMPP MUC. That way Apple would have no entity to threaten. Of course then Apple would just nerf all the XMPP clients in the app store and/or the government would block access to all the XMPP servers in use. Dunno how well XMPP over Tor would work here...
How that would be any different?
[deleted]
Seriously use librem 5 or pinephones
[deleted]
Imagine Apple demanding telegram remove data providing personal information about the nazi officers running Auschwitz... these are government employees caught Assaulting citizens while masked and refusing to identify themselves. They lost all right to privacy when they decided to support the current attempted dictatorial takeover.
That’s misleading title: channels doxxed corrupt law enforcers. I’m not saying it is good or bad (I don’t know, what do you think?), just pointing to significantly incomplete title.
And another very interesting question is: who complained to Apple? Obviously it is not Apple itself monitored these channels.
And another very interesting question is: who complained to Apple? Obviously it is not Apple itself monitored these channels.
Who the f--- Apple thinks they are to decide this for the people in Belarus??
The amazing thing, if I'm reading this right, is that this is global censorship. That is, no iOS user in the world will be able to read these channels.
Using the App Store, Apple is making the Belarus' dictatorship's censorship apply even in democracies.
Using the App Store, Apple is making the Belarus' dictatorship's censorship apply even in democracies.
I just want to point out that we don’t have to put up with this endless creepy corporate invasion of our lives. Eventually Apple, Google and these other behemoths will be disrupted and displaced by technology.
The curve favors the individual not the corporation or the state.
The curve favors the individual not the corporation or the state.
What drives decision makers to want an extra million dollars at the expense of the already-poor?
You would think Apple would be content with its billions and could care less whether authoritarians are mad it them because protesters are evading abuse in prisons.
You would think Apple would be content with its billions and could care less whether authoritarians are mad it them because protesters are evading abuse in prisons.
If protestors were to prove that the loss of access to the information from these channels lead to their imprisonment and subsequent torture, could they take Apple to the ICC in the Hague, for crimes against Humanity?
fwiw Apple also bans any 18+ channels on iOS and MacOS, so Apple's censorship of Telegram is not a new development.
Exposing personal data surely may violate Apple's TOS. However, obeying the law make sense only in the system, playing by fair rules. If the system is unfair, being honest, if the system is a crazy totalitarian regime, disobeying the law is one of ways to contain it.
To understand the situation in Belarus by example, imagine former Nazi concentration camp guards, protesting against exposing their identities, because Israeli security forces may come after them. Crazy analogy you would say, but Belarusian people call their police and KGB Nazis.
To understand the situation in Belarus by example, imagine former Nazi concentration camp guards, protesting against exposing their identities, because Israeli security forces may come after them. Crazy analogy you would say, but Belarusian people call their police and KGB Nazis.
I wonder what side of the American Revolution or even the American Civil War that Apple would be on if it were taking place today..
Apple is taking sides with the oppressors. Shameful but predictable: "When it comes to hanging the capitalists they will sell us the rope." (supposedly Lenin)
Well, don't buy Apple...
OT - Apple should have removed Telegram months ago.
Telegram has been used to share some very bad COVID disinformation.
My father who is older and lives in Iran shared with me this video about how to treat COVID. It was produced really nicely in the Farsi (Persian) language.
Anyone who has ever read the book "Made to Stick" (highly recommended) would immediately that this video was designed to be a viral disinformation campaign.
The video started so credibility talking about the virus, the family of virus it belongs to, it talked about genetics similarities, etc. All seem very credible. Then it comes the disinformation gotcha:
To defeat COVID (with some beautiful inside the lungs animation ) talking about alveoli and how they function, when you are indoor you need to laugh deeply and very hard. This laughing hard gets rid of the virus, etc. etc.
Great idea, right? Seems like a way to exacerbate the spread of a deadly virus.
To me the quality of video made me think it was probably produce by a state or entity working for a state with budget.
If that is so I considered this incident as one of the first examples of using disinformation to commit genocide.
The problem with Telegram team working from the United Arab Emirates, it's unclear to me if it's being used to weaponize disinformation for evil means or not. From what I have seen, I believe, Telegram is being misused and it needs to be removed from the App Store.
Telegram has been used to share some very bad COVID disinformation.
My father who is older and lives in Iran shared with me this video about how to treat COVID. It was produced really nicely in the Farsi (Persian) language.
Anyone who has ever read the book "Made to Stick" (highly recommended) would immediately that this video was designed to be a viral disinformation campaign.
The video started so credibility talking about the virus, the family of virus it belongs to, it talked about genetics similarities, etc. All seem very credible. Then it comes the disinformation gotcha:
To defeat COVID (with some beautiful inside the lungs animation ) talking about alveoli and how they function, when you are indoor you need to laugh deeply and very hard. This laughing hard gets rid of the virus, etc. etc.
Great idea, right? Seems like a way to exacerbate the spread of a deadly virus.
To me the quality of video made me think it was probably produce by a state or entity working for a state with budget.
If that is so I considered this incident as one of the first examples of using disinformation to commit genocide.
The problem with Telegram team working from the United Arab Emirates, it's unclear to me if it's being used to weaponize disinformation for evil means or not. From what I have seen, I believe, Telegram is being misused and it needs to be removed from the App Store.
You can access disinformation through Safari. Should Safari be removed?
Comparing Safari with Telegram makes no sense. As they are so different in so many ways.
You can access disinformation through any group chat app. Should all be removed?
So you are okay with COVID disinformation to be weaponized to commit genocide?
There is a threshold that "group chat" becomes a channel. Which is exactly what even Telegram calls them.
It's no different than if KKK had a YouTube channel and freely spreads disinformation or doxed anyone they don't like. We would expect YouTube to have certain guidelines that prevents disinformation and hate channels to takeover YouTube.
Telegram should either have a way to better monitor these channels, or remove the channel functionally. If they're unable or unwilling then, Apple should remove the app.
(edit typo)
There is a threshold that "group chat" becomes a channel. Which is exactly what even Telegram calls them.
It's no different than if KKK had a YouTube channel and freely spreads disinformation or doxed anyone they don't like. We would expect YouTube to have certain guidelines that prevents disinformation and hate channels to takeover YouTube.
Telegram should either have a way to better monitor these channels, or remove the channel functionally. If they're unable or unwilling then, Apple should remove the app.
(edit typo)
Where did I say that "I'm okay with COVID disinformation to be weaponized to commit genocide"? Talk about going on a tangent.
And if we're realy going to move the goalpost from "Apple bending over to a totalitarian regime" to "health related missinformation": Facebook has groups that are openly anti-vaxx yet I don't see Apple threatening to remove Facebook app:
"Vaccine Resistance Movement: VRM Updates & News From The Trenches Public group" - 39.4K members (https://www.facebook.com/groups/VaccineResistanceMovement/)
By your logic, Apple seems to be okay with disinformation-induced "genocide".
That group even has anti-mask related posts...
And if we're realy going to move the goalpost from "Apple bending over to a totalitarian regime" to "health related missinformation": Facebook has groups that are openly anti-vaxx yet I don't see Apple threatening to remove Facebook app:
"Vaccine Resistance Movement: VRM Updates & News From The Trenches Public group" - 39.4K members (https://www.facebook.com/groups/VaccineResistanceMovement/)
By your logic, Apple seems to be okay with disinformation-induced "genocide".
That group even has anti-mask related posts...
The source of the information is Telegram founder Pavel Durov [1] who posted on the Telegram platform [2] [3] (links via ffpip).
This is part of the 2020 Belarusian Protests [4]. Three Telegram accounts, dedicated to doxing police officers associated with the authoritarian regime of Alexander Lukashenko, have been requested to be taken down by Apple.
Durov is politically libertarian and is in self-imposed exile after his own struggle with the regime in his Russian homeland.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
[2] https://t.me/durov/135
[3] https://t.me/durov/136
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Belarusian_protests
This is part of the 2020 Belarusian Protests [4]. Three Telegram accounts, dedicated to doxing police officers associated with the authoritarian regime of Alexander Lukashenko, have been requested to be taken down by Apple.
Durov is politically libertarian and is in self-imposed exile after his own struggle with the regime in his Russian homeland.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Durov
[2] https://t.me/durov/135
[3] https://t.me/durov/136
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Belarusian_protests
Two stories here, and one is definitely about modern monopolies.
Apple is irrelevant in former communist countries, Android is king here. So yeah, Telegram can shut down those channels for iOS, leave them be for Android. It will change nothing.
Apple is more like a cult with totalitarian rule. Google is not too far behind.
Both track your every move/conversation and share ALL your data with government agencies via the PRISM surveillance program led by the NSA (Google joined PRISM in 2009; Apple in 2012).[1] These BigTech companies/PRISM members are beyond the law because they are defacto extensions of Big Brother Surveillance. If Apple were to make a PRISM break from membership, then it would likely receive lawsuits for tax evasion and monopoly behavior (antitrust). Understand the game?
Consider This About Apple:
• Apple uses offshore quasi-indentured-servant labor to bypass labor- and wage-laws;
• The rotten fruit evades the spirit of taxation by setting up shell companies in Ireland, tiny islands, Nevada, etc. to hoard billions of un-taxed dollars in these vehicles;
• The BigTech Global Company uses monopoly-like power to control its users behavior and even inserts forms of malware to make the OS perform slower and/or drain the battery to encourage users to upgrade their phone! . . .
>> Remember, freedom (Liberty) requires continual effort lest one becomes enslaved.
Google, to its credit, still provides open source software of the Android OS for anyone to port and modify. It’s called Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Anyone who makes a modest effort can install AOSP on a non-apple device – even many older phones.
There are a myriad of open-source and partial open-source custom ROMs that are often built using AOSP, but not exclusively – Ubuntu Touch, Replicant, Resurrection Remix, PureOS, LineageOS, TizenOS, ParanoidAndroid, KaiOS, PostmarketOS, etc.[2]
One may simply flash a custom ROM on their used or new non-Apple device. Take 30 minutes to read instructions on any number of tech forums such as xda-developers.com, for one example. What you will realize is stable custom ROMS are more secure than native stock OS by Apple and Google. And, one may modify the custom ROMS as any lover of freedom chooses.
There are also devices coming to market that have kill switches that disable cellular tracking by PRISM, etc.: Purism’s Librem 5, Pine64's PinePhone, OpenPandora’s DragonBox, etc. And, these organizations are honorable and community-driven, either partly or entirely.
So, just because a lot of people won’t make the tiny effort to liberate themselves from evil (and continue to justify a “walled garden” implemented by said evil rotten fruit), doesn’t mean the small number of people who choose liberty over security should be sacrificed at the alter of evil.
No laws or regulations are necessary. Vote with your dollars and actions.
Wake the Flock Up, People!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
Both track your every move/conversation and share ALL your data with government agencies via the PRISM surveillance program led by the NSA (Google joined PRISM in 2009; Apple in 2012).[1] These BigTech companies/PRISM members are beyond the law because they are defacto extensions of Big Brother Surveillance. If Apple were to make a PRISM break from membership, then it would likely receive lawsuits for tax evasion and monopoly behavior (antitrust). Understand the game?
Consider This About Apple:
• Apple uses offshore quasi-indentured-servant labor to bypass labor- and wage-laws;
• The rotten fruit evades the spirit of taxation by setting up shell companies in Ireland, tiny islands, Nevada, etc. to hoard billions of un-taxed dollars in these vehicles;
• The BigTech Global Company uses monopoly-like power to control its users behavior and even inserts forms of malware to make the OS perform slower and/or drain the battery to encourage users to upgrade their phone! . . .
>> Remember, freedom (Liberty) requires continual effort lest one becomes enslaved.
Google, to its credit, still provides open source software of the Android OS for anyone to port and modify. It’s called Android Open Source Project (AOSP). Anyone who makes a modest effort can install AOSP on a non-apple device – even many older phones.
There are a myriad of open-source and partial open-source custom ROMs that are often built using AOSP, but not exclusively – Ubuntu Touch, Replicant, Resurrection Remix, PureOS, LineageOS, TizenOS, ParanoidAndroid, KaiOS, PostmarketOS, etc.[2]
One may simply flash a custom ROM on their used or new non-Apple device. Take 30 minutes to read instructions on any number of tech forums such as xda-developers.com, for one example. What you will realize is stable custom ROMS are more secure than native stock OS by Apple and Google. And, one may modify the custom ROMS as any lover of freedom chooses.
There are also devices coming to market that have kill switches that disable cellular tracking by PRISM, etc.: Purism’s Librem 5, Pine64's PinePhone, OpenPandora’s DragonBox, etc. And, these organizations are honorable and community-driven, either partly or entirely.
So, just because a lot of people won’t make the tiny effort to liberate themselves from evil (and continue to justify a “walled garden” implemented by said evil rotten fruit), doesn’t mean the small number of people who choose liberty over security should be sacrificed at the alter of evil.
No laws or regulations are necessary. Vote with your dollars and actions.
Wake the Flock Up, People!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distrib...
WTF this is bad.
While I'm against doxing, what right does Apple have to tell Telegram what to do?
It's not doxing if they are state sponsored criminals. That is a horrible misuse of the term. You do not remove evidence of criminals indentity. That's a crime in itself. You are complicit in the crime by coving it up
It started with Alex Jones
If Apple starts messing with politics, then politics has to start messing with Apple. Break up Apple. Seize their assets.
Don't use corporate apps and platforms for popular movements. They make the rules and they continue their inverted totalitarian takeover of public commons when more people depend on them for civic activities. Furthermore, they cooperate with intelligence services. It's too big of a risk to depend on them.
And, they used craptacular Telegram instead of Signal. Dumb.
And, they used craptacular Telegram instead of Signal. Dumb.
I don't see much difference between big tech and dictatorships. They rule and govern people, they extract their wealth, and they crush or buy off all opposition. It can't last and I'm genuinely concerned for bigwigs and common people alike. It's easy to become disconnected from reality when you're that rich, and I don't think the masses are going to buy the "we're just a tech company" thing much longer.
Apple is a US company. If Belarus people want those channels, they should build their own device or get an android. I fully support apple taking action on violence and doxing rather than bending down to other country's people or apps like telegram.
If tiktok refused to take down doxing of officials in US, it would get banned.
If tiktok refused to take down doxing of officials in US, it would get banned.
When looking at Apple's ads and knowing that it is a US company, I kind of expect that in my oppressive post-soviet country I can get a glimpse of power of US constitution and that they won't bend under demands of third world dictators...
> Apple says it didn’t require any channels to be removed. But they demanded to immediately remove any information that discloses someone's data on the Internet without the consent of these persons, as well as content aimed at specific people in accordance with the rules of the App Store.
This refers to the efforts of the Belorussian opposition to 'unmask' members of the riot police by posting their personal details online. Without going into the moral weeds, from the terms-of-service point of view that's basically griefing, no?
So this is a very curious quandary Apple finds itself in. Let's assume that griefing Belorussian law enforcement is a good thing. But at the same time griefing people (regardless of whether they are bad/good/chaotic neutral) is against the TOS.
So what do you do if you are Apple?
[0] https://tjournal.ru/tech/221326-apple-zayavila-chto-ne-trebo...