Apple has removed WhatsApp and Threads from its app store in China, following an order from the country’s internet watchdog which cited national security concerns.
Juliana Liu at CNN
Over the recent months, as Apple had to change some of its business practices to comply with the European Union’s new Digital Markets Act, a still-ongoing process, Apple fans, spearheaded by John Gruber, have pushed Apple to leave the European Union. They argue that the minor inconvenience of complying with some basic consumer and market protection laws is too great of a deeply unfair financial sacrifice, and that leaving the EU makes more sense. Gruber also goes to bat hard for poor Facebook, arguing that company should leave the EU, too, over the DMA demanding Facebook respects users’ privacy. Apple itself, too, has been harshly attacking the European Union aggressively in the media.
So anyway, today, Apple did what it has been doing for a very long time: bending over backwards for the totalitarian, genocidal regime in China. China tells Apple to remove applications, Apple complies. Every other of the sixteen hundred times Apple has complied with this horrible regime’s demands, Gruber always argued that all poor Apple can do is comply with local Chinese laws and demands, as leaving China over principles and morals would benefit nobody.
So, we’re left with the rather peculiar situation where the response to some relatively minor consumer and market protection regulations is one of deep hostility, both from Apple as well as its PR attack dogs, whereas the response to the demands from one of the most brutal, totalitarian, genocidal regimes in human history is one of “that’s life”. Such is the way of the Apple corporatist: a democratically drawn up and widely popular law enacted by an incredibly popular government that causes some mild inconvenience for Apple is vilified with populist and nationalist anti-EU rhetoric, while the undemocratic, totalitarian decrees from a vicious genocidal dictator are met with effectively disinterested shrugs since those decrees don’t really inconvenience Apple.
Corporatism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, from early 20th century Europe, through mid-20th century United States, to the megacorporations of today.
Despite yet another decree from China that goes far further in nature than anything the DMA demands, we won’t be seeing any pushes from the Grubers of this world for Apple to leave China. We won’t be seeing copious amounts of malicious compliance from Apple. We won’t be treated to lengthy diatribes from Apple executives about how much they despise China and Chinese laws. All because China’s demands don’t harm Apple’s bottom line, but the DMA might.
And for the corporatist, praying at the altar of money, the former is irrelevant, while the latter is sacrilege.
Thom Holwerda,
Somehow I don’t think apple fans will see it this way, but I think you are right, the hypocrisy is there. Any time apple is criticized for complying with oppressive governments the results is on the lines of “it’s not their fault they’re following the law”.
Ultimately my opinion isn’t that companies should break the laws, but they shouldn’t be building the jails. They are acting complicity when they design technology that restricts owners. In apple’s case the fact of the matter is that their walled garden implicitly subjects users to authoritarian control. You cannot on the one hand defend user restrictions granting apple control while admonishing restrictions that grant government control because these are the same restrictions.
American companies had been doing business in Russia for decades before they invaded Ukraine (many are still there), and people were fine with that, but not this?
CaptainN-,
…is this in relation to anything in my post?
Obviously I have different opinions about these different countries, but my opinions regarding Apple don’t change whether it’s Russia, China, EU, US or whoever.
> They are acting complicity when they design technology that restricts owners. In apple’s case the fact of the matter is that their walled garden implicitly subjects users to authoritarian control.
Sorry, I don’t get it: who exactly forced you to buy Apple products and services?
Don’t get me wrong, I love you and I despise Apple. But I don’t see a reason to regulate whips when people WANT to indulge in masochistic games?
Andreas Reichel,
I find that problem is that this logic can be used to justify everything corporations do. no matter how anti-consumer it is and without regards to market dominance.
Wow, hearing that makes me surprisingly uncomfortable. Probably never been said before on osnews, haha.
Edit: I stand corrected:
https://www.osnews.com/story/139070/open-source-is-about-more-than-just-code/#comment-10437878
I love you too
I very much agree with you on monopolies and I also make provisions for endangering lives (Boeing and Medical Sectors) or damaging the environment.
But nothing of that applies to Apple or Facebook or Google. You can live perfectly fine without them. It’s peoples choice.
Andreas Reichel,
It’s not that simple though. Here’s a personal anecdote: my phone runs lineageOS, but when I needed a 2FA client for work, the company I worked for went with a service that only supports stock android phones with google play services. It didn’t work on my phone, I opened up tickets and everything, nobody, not the company, nor the software authors gave a crap about alternatives. I was literally forced to buy a new phone, not at gun point of course, but to keep my job. I asked them to buy me a phone, but they said it was my responsibility to own a standard phone. That’s the real world we live in.
One of the reasons we have no viable competition is because we’ve allowed the apples and googles to kill off competition with anti-competitive tactics that make consumers dependent on them while simultaneously taking steps to block competitors. This is bad and must not be allowed in a healthy free market.
I know people will come in and defend apple or google anti-consumer practices because they hate government regulation, and I get that. I’m not a fan of governments that would take away our liberties. But the truth is the absence of government corporate oversight does not equate to not freedom, not even close. That just leaves the entire market at the mercy of the powerful corporations, which always result in them abusing their power to kill off more competitors and take away more of our choices. Whether we like or not, governments are the only entities capable of putting a stop to corporate abuses. Without antitrust enforcement, we’re right back to the robber baron era: bad for consumers, bad for employees, bad for innovation, bad for competition, and bad for freedom.
You said you agree with me on monopolies, so some of my comment may come across as redundant, but I’d like to specifically emphasis that even duopolies are extremely harmful to consumer choice. That we’ve allowed things to reach the current duopoly is an indicator that market oversight has failed and free market competition is already in grave trouble. I don’t think it’s rational to claim “it’s peoples choice” when the consumers who want more choices, including myself and Thom, are hurting today.
>> Don’t get me wrong, I love you and I despise Apple.
> Wow, hearing that makes me surprisingly uncomfortable.
Deal with it, a lot of people don’t like Apple!
Has Apple refused to comply with any order made by any EU institution (or US for that matter)?
Or is the issue that Apple will challenge all orders to the extent it can – which in China it basically cannot do.
Apple leaving China accomplishes exactly nothing.
And in any case, Apple has not left the EU either when demands have been made of it. So why should they leave China?
On top of that: what was the outcry when Elon Musk refused to comply with the Brazilian Judge? And again, I am not a Musk fan or defending his behavior.
My point is about consistent Morale and Compass. Breaking the law should not be regarded good or bad based on the political bias of the subject. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fight” — remember that.
Its a minefield, really. China should be more democratic and allow more freedoms for its people. Companies should respect the freedoms of its customers and users. To the extent possible. Its not an easy call. And chaining yourself to an absolute is a trap. All companies and governments should be pushed to offer more freedoms in general, while also limiting the flow of misinformation, hate speech, and terrorisms. Defining how to do that is, well an insanely difficult task that I can’t squeeze into a comment, even if I were able to articulate it. But the right answer isn’t to do nothing, nor is it to do everything possible. Somewhere in between.
A wise comment, I tip my hat!
Buddhism calls it the “Golden Path”, they middle ground balancing different views and avoiding any kind of extremism.
There’s an easy way to view corporate power creep as just another kind of fascism. Mousonlini described fascism as “the marriage of corporation and state,” after all.
But actually, this demonstrates something the keen observer might find hope in. In a world in which many economists (especially left-leaning ones) say internationalization reduces the power of countries to regulate the companies that operate within their borders, here is a clear example of a county making a rule, and then compelling action based on the threat of enforcement. This is a clear demonstration that most of what the various different sides of economists say is absolute nonsense (to be fair, economics in general is absolute nonsense).
State regulators can control these companies, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, and China just proved it, whether you agree with their reasons or not.
CaptainN-,
So…you agree with Thom’s point on hypocrisy then? It’s just unclear from what you’ve said.
I wanted to add a dimension, rather than simply “pick a side”
Thom, with all due respect: you need to travel the world much more. Your oversimplified China is bad, EU is great is just hilarious. In reality there are no sides, just players — and many shades of grey. In the real world you have to make the tough choices between economical freedom and political freedom. Name just one country, where you can have both.
Obviously. my homeland of Freedomland. Assuming you define those in a sane manner. But seeing as you are asking the question, I’m guessing you’d disapprove of my definition.
Freedom-land where people sit for 20 years in a dungeon without a trial (Guantanomo) and where Prisons have become perpetual industry?
Although I agree that US/EU are probably the least bad places to live regarding political freedom, from far away I can’t see any contrasted sides. Just shades of grey and players in a game and lots of propaganda.
Its Freedomland not justice land. There are laws and then the enforcement of the laws. A difference without distinction? Perhaps.
America (I’m American) locks up more people per capita than any other country (especially in the southern red states). I’d ask how you define that as “freedom” – but there’s a great book by George Lakoff called “Who’s Freedom” to explain it.
No I get it, And don’t disagree really. There is a dichotomy there and really always has been with this country. Our laws are lofty in their intent, but on the ground the enforcement is awful. There is much that needs to be changed including the carceral state. We send tax dollars on jails instead of schools, Its really really messed up. Your punishment for any given crime is not independent of where you commit it, who you commit it against, what your ethnic background is, your social status.
[Quote] We won’t be treated to lengthy diatribes from Apple executives about how much they despise China and Chinese laws. All because China’s demands don’t harm Apple’s bottom line, but the DMA might. [/QUOTE]
Quite the contrary. WHy just the fact that the Chinese government banned iPhones in all government offices sent APple stock plummeting last week. SO I believe money talks when it comes to a publicly traded company.
EU is getting broke, but it’s not broke enough for Apple not to bend its “principles” for a good buck.
In short just as Apple has been banding over to China so will Apple and Gruber for EU. That is for now global companies don’t have the power to disregard local laws. Let alone an individual.
So when an ultra-capitalist company like Apple Inc. obeys the demands of the Communist Party, this is somehow “fascism” (a political ideology rejecting both capitalism and communism)? This triggers me as a hobby historian. “Fascism” is not a synonym for “badguyism”, it is an actual ideology. Stop using meaningless buzzwords.
j0scher,
Communism vs Capitalism is more about the economic spectrum.
Fascism versus democracy is more about the political spectrum.
Concepts that exist in two different dimensions aren’t strictly exclusive. Arguably China has a fascist government regime with a foot in both capitalistic and communistic economic policies.
I don’t think you’re going to like this article…
https://theconversation.com/how-china-combined-authoritarianism-with-capitalism-to-create-a-new-communism-167586
I think you’re just using fascism synonymously with authoritarianism.
j0scher,
Sure, they are very close siblings. I think autocracy belongs there too.
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/fascism.html
These all describe political freedom (or lack thereof). Such governments can dictate the economy as in communism, but you can technically have an authoritarian regime that believes in capitalist economy. And moreover their capitalistic markets could theoretically be even stronger than those of a democracy. I’m not trying to suggest this is true as a rule, only that these concepts exist on dimensions that allow for it.