[HN Gopher] Fired App Reviewer Sues Apple ___________________________________________________________________ Fired App Reviewer Sues Apple Author : ksec Score : 230 points Date : 2021-01-01 08:57 UTC (14 hours ago) (HTM) web link (reason.com) (TXT) w3m dump (reason.com) | crististm wrote: | Chinese gov to Apple: so, we've heard you are building (edit: and | selling) your products here huh? | xuki wrote: | Manufacturing is one thing, the purchasing power of Chinese is | another thing. China is about 15-20% of Apple's business and | they can't afford to lose it. China will happily ban iPhone | while letting Apple keep manufacturing. | crististm wrote: | It's an interesting twist. It doesn't change the fact that | Apple takes shit from Chinese gov to be able to make money. | | I understand, rule of the land and all that, but I won't pull | any punches: Apple knows exactly what they are doing and they | are no fluffy angels. | TheChaplain wrote: | Reading the PDF I really can't understand how the court says | there was no harassment.. | | And 80 app reviews per day? Do they even have time to eat or take | a dump? | schappim wrote: | Yikes! That is less than 6 min per app. | simonh wrote: | Many, possibly the vast majority are probably reviews of | minor updates to existing apps. | gregoriol wrote: | Shouldn't the reviewer check every update? What if the | "minor" update contains some rule breaking changes? They | can't know/assume from the developer's update description | that it is a minor update, and don't have much other | information about what has changed. | | Otherwise it would be very easy to first publish a "normal" | app, and then just publish an update with bad stuff added. | simonh wrote: | They do review every update, but they have a lot of | automated tools that help a lot when reviewing minor | changes. So for example, if only a few bytes have changed | and the binary is only a few bytes different in size they | can mostly rely on the tools. That's probably most bug | fix updates right there. | gregoriol wrote: | Automated tools will probably check private api usage and | maybe some basic technical stuff, but they won't be able | to catch a feature change. | | And even if you were right, changing some text or url | would pass your test as only a few characters change, but | that could make a big difference regarding the feature. | lapcatsoftware wrote: | > So for example, if only a few bytes have changed and | the binary is only a few bytes different in size they can | mostly rely on the tools. | | That's not how compiled optimized binaries work, | especially not with Apple platforms, ever-changing Xcode | and Swift compiler versions, etc. Have you tried | comparing the binaries of minor app updates? (I just | tried comparing the binaries of my own app updates, where | I have the source code and know what changed, but it's | not pretty, and not "a few bytes".) Moreover, App Store | reviewers are not the least bit qualified to even make | this determination with regard to "bytes changed". | | Two binaries aren't even going to have the same load | address for the __TEXT __text segment, and thus a lot of | stuff will be different. You think App Store reviewers | have any conception of the structure of a Mach-O? Now, | one might try to hand-wave and say the "automated tools" | will take care of everything, but that's extremely | unlikely. Diffing binaries is a skill that requires a | human with extensive experience in reverse engineering. | If it were totally automated, then all of the securities | researchers out there would have those tools too, but | they don't. There are of course tools that help a lot, | but the human researcher is still essential to the | process. | faeyanpiraat wrote: | I assume Apple has access to the source code of the app, | so they probably are not comparing binary blobs for | changes. | lapcatsoftware wrote: | > I assume Apple has access to the source code of the app | | No, Apple doesn't get our source code. Why would you | assume that? | gregoriol wrote: | They don't: you submit a compiled binary for review | dagmx wrote: | Sort of. You submit either a binary blob or LLVM IR. The | latter is great because Apple can do the final platform | specific compile for you, and build out for new systems | as needed. | faeyanpiraat wrote: | I don't get the downvotes. | | They are making the compiler. | | How hard can it be to do a proper decompiler? | | They have the binary; they have the source (in some way) | [deleted] | echelon wrote: | Apple fans act like this process is designed to protect them | from malware, but it's so superficial that it couldn't be | much better than automated detection methods. | | In reality, Apple is looking for | | 1. Loopholes around its walled garden | | 2. Payments not being taxed | | 3. Apps not using the latest demanded framework, such as | Apple sign in (they're not _your_ users, they 're Apple users | on loan to you) | | 4. Political content its Chinese minders will be unhappy | about | threeseed wrote: | Most reviews are just for updates. | | In which case they are simply checking copy, opening the app | and clicking around a bit etc i.e. no more than a few minutes. | | The longer reviews are reserved for new apps and edge cases. | lapcatsoftware wrote: | > The longer reviews are reserved for new apps and edge | cases. | | As an App Store developer myself, I'm not sure it's true. For | example, one of my 1.0 releases was "In Review" for all of 14 | minutes, which is shorter than many of my minor update | releases. | | On the outside, we don't know how review works. It's mostly | speculation. People talk about how they _think_ it _should_ | work, but how it actually works is a different matter. | matwood wrote: | How many apps do you have? Have you had issues with other | ones? Was this app under the same account? I'm sure | heuristics are used to speed up the process where possible. | | It's been awhile since I've written native iOS apps, but | early on in the App Store days a developer could request an | expedited review. We managed to get on this list and stay | there for the entire life of the app. Even the dark days of | long review times, our app never took more than 24 hours. | simonh wrote: | China is a major problem for 'western' companies. From sports and | media companies that are walking on egg shells in case actors or | sports stars, or even fans, say things critical of the Chinese | government. De-funding or sidelining of movies potentially | critical of the Chinese government. Imagine a film like The | Manchurian Candidate being made now? It's not gong to happen, not | from a major film studio anyway. The problems Apple is having | here, and also with Chinese supplier companies possibly using | transported Uighur labourers working under some form of coercion, | can affect pretty much any foreign company operating in China. | | In this case the App in question was pulled from the App Store in | China. On the one hand I can understand it's the Chinese market | so Chinese Government rules apply. Clearly this would not be | acceptable if the App was pulled internationally. On the other | hand, if the US government tried to get an App pulled when it's | not clear the App violated any US law or App Store rules, Apple | would fight it to the courts. That's a tricky course to take with | China, but it's obviously the right thing to do. | | If Chinese law says the App has to be pulled and a Chinese court | says so then fine, I've no problem with Apple complying with | that, the alternative would be to expect them to criminalise | Apple employees in China. That's clearly not a reasonable | expectation on any company. But at least it would force the | Chinese authorities to account for their actions and make it | clear what they are doing and why. | | The problem is it's not really possible for individual companies | to fight the Chinese government. Even for a company like Apple, | the asymmetry in the power of the CCP relative to Apple is | overwhelming. The CCP could crush Apple, and they know it. They | hold enough economic power now that they could quite feasibly | drive a major film studio to the wall, or slice off the whole | profit margin of many US media or sports organisations. | | It's time for western governments to work together on this. | Congressional hearings in the US, debates at the G7 and G20. The | WTO is pretty crippled at the moment and that needs to change. | Whatever side of the US political fence you are and think about | US imports, surely you all want to support US exports and the | rights of US companies abroad right? I'm a Brit and ok we're out | of the EU now, but on things like this we're all in the same boat | and need to work together. We need to all support Australia in | their current spat with the CCP. | | We are desperately in need of a broad and international political | debate about these issues. It affects all of us. | antihero wrote: | In a certain way it is quite funny that a "communist" society | is actually using western capitalist's money to undermine | everything about their society. | colejohnson66 wrote: | Because they're not communists. Just like the Nazis weren't | socialists. For a better example, the DPRK (North Korea) has | "democratic" in its name, but they are very clearly _not_ | democratic. | felipelemos wrote: | I don't know why you are being downvoted. It's a very | reasonable way to think. | | We should have a policy of reciprocity with China. This must be | discussed urgently. | echelon wrote: | Anti-China rhetoric gets downvoted with fervor on HN. | | I also agree with OP. It's one of the most pressing issues | for our country and for democratic nations throughout the | world. | | I'd be happy if it were Japan, Korea, or India (or a | democratic China) rising to #1, but the CCP being in that | slot is scary. The thought of having an oppressive regime | become the world's most powerful economic force is | unsettling. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | As most nations today, China has its own troll farms to | foster positive sentiment. Sadly, I am sure that affects HN | as well. | | Come to think of it, US government does not appear to | officially use them. Thus far I only saw allegations of | various companies using them ( and I am sure they are ). I | did hear various LEOs troll forums ( but that is for | reasons other than saying government is awesome ). | | https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/leaked-docs-reveal-how- | ch... | goblin89 wrote: | You say "most nations", but I find it hard to believe | that any democratic country would teach its citizens, | say, simplified Chinese, and order them to infiltrate | Chinese forums and advocate against CCP. Only a regime | that doesn't have to worry about taxpayer's opinion could | afford something like that. | | Speaking of COVID censorship, any English-speaking report | on COVID on YouTube (especially from BBC, where comments | tend to somewhat lack energy compared to reports by | American media) tends to heavily feature commenters that | ignore basic logic and argue that there should be an | international investigation of the US for starting the | pandemic. | | I would consider it hilarious but it's actually scary, a | sporadic uncoordinated voluntary expression of approval | characteristic to a democratic country can hardly compete | with methodical systematic social media and forum | warfare. | simonh wrote: | There have definitely been cases of astroturfing and vote | bombing in the west, but it seems to be much less common | these days because it almost always seems to get found | out. If you think about it, the employees doing it aren't | zombies, as soon as they leave the company they've got no | reason stay loyal. News organisations are all over | stories like that. The resulting bad press can be | catastrophic for a company, far worse than any | conceivable benefit from the behaviour itself. | | For governments in democracies it's even worse, this is | why most government conspiracy theories don't make sense. | Why would government employees or even soldiers | criminalise themselves to benefit a political party or | president they might not even personally support? Once | particular president is out of office, there's no reason | to stay personally loyal to them so leaders can only rely | on people's loyalty to the nation as a whole. | | Conversely the CCP simply suppresses all discussion about | the suppression, and disappears anyone who becomes too | problematic. There are no divided political loyalties and | no other political faction or press to go to. What's | anyone going to do? | dragonwriter wrote: | > There have definitely been cases of astroturfing and | vote bombing in the west, but it seems to be much less | common these days because it almost always seems to get | found out. | | Or, it seems less common because those doing it have | improved over time so that it almost never gets found out | when done by the real pros, only when done by relative | incompetents whose visible failures shield the competent | astroturfers from suspicion. The only thing that would | make it seem _common_ is getting found out frequently, | after all. | simonh wrote: | Oh sure, it's a matter of balancing probabilities. We can | never be certain, since it's not possible to prove a | negative. Still, if we know there are balancing factors | such as risks from press investigation, whistle blowers, | accidental leaks, etc and still we see extremely low or | no cases hitting the press, then it seems the balance of | probability is that it's relatively rare. | | Compared to the extremely obvious, blatant, continuous | Astro turfing, comment suppression, vote bombing and | harassment we see by the authorities in China. Let's not | make any false equivalences. | zepto wrote: | For once I find myself in complete agreement with you. | | The only reason I have sympathy for Apple in this situation | is that at the time they began their investment in China, | the US and the West in general believed that China was on a | path to liberalization and genuinely wanted to support them | as a global ally. | | It's not going to be easy to disentangle from that. | mantas wrote: | At the same time, EU is about to sign an investment agreement | with China. And some top level EU politicians claim that | China and USA are equal evil. | | As a citizen of EU member, all I can say is SAD :( | echelon wrote: | I'm curious about this. Could you provide a link where I | can read more? | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I keep thinking about what you said, because I think I have | accepted that out of the two, I would rather live under US | regime the CCP's. More importantly, it is now clear that China | follows US steps in ensuring a level of cultural hegemony | enjoyed by US for some time. Although, they seem to apply it | more deliberately. I am not convinced that is good for a world | in general. That path they chose is the path Russian communists | would have loved to have taken if they had the tools China now | has ( and yes, we provided those tools ). | | US, despite certain misgivings, seems to have been a net good | for the world ( not completely unlike Roman empire ). I am not | certain China is, but have yet to see how it all plays out. | Now, there are circles in US, that absolutely love China and | the power the government wields there ( something along the | lines of 'if only we could have US and China-like control, we | would be all set' mindset ). | | In short, I agree with you, we, as a species, should have a | really hard discussion over what comes next. In a lot of ways, | this is a turning point. I am not sure, we are ready to have | that discussion. | franklampard wrote: | > have been a net good for the world ? | lph wrote: | Seems like a stretch to claim that approving an app on behalf of | an employer is protected political activity, but is this really | so different from the pharmacist who refuses to fill a birth | control prescription on religious grounds? | oefrha wrote: | The app in question seems to be the outlet of Guo Wengui, a | fugitive businessman wanted for corruption charges in China. | (Whether the charges are valid or not I have zero idea. | Incidentally I learned about this guy from the news of Steve | Bannon's arrest on this guy's yacht.) So stating that this app is | merely critical of Chinese government is lacking quite a bit of | context. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_Wengui | andi999 wrote: | The full text PDF linked at the top is interesting. I am | wondering what bone apple had to pick with him. | zepto wrote: | Take a look at some of the comments which explore the nature of | the App. | | Also, frankly it's not actually his decision to make. | | If someone doesn't want to carry out company policy, they can | choose to resign or expect to be fired. | | This looks like someone with a political agenda who is using | this situation to advance it. | andi999 wrote: | The app was just the final issue, in the document it starts | with a manager ordering him to work slower and then another | complaining about his slowness. | zepto wrote: | Maybe. | | But this is someone who is choosing to fight for a far | right app created by a financer of Steve Bannon to remain | in the store on the grounds of free speech. | | How certain are you that everything in the complaint is | true? | jedberg wrote: | I think I just realized while Apple doesn't allow side loading | apps. Because if you could side load apps, then Chinese citizens | could side load apps, and Apple would no longer be favored in | China. | | This complaint makes me feel like it's as simple as that. Apple | just fears China. | Lammy wrote: | > Apple doesn't allow side loading apps | | HN readers might be surprised at the extent of modded-iOS-app | communities (just like APK communities for Androids) that | manage to exist within the meager 7-day signing window Apple | allows a free-tier developer account. Tools like AltStore and | ReProvision are the standard for sideloading and renewing | (respectively) legitimate jailbreak-entrypoint apps: | | https://github.com/rileytestut/AltStore | | https://github.com/Matchstic/ReProvision | | Even for un-jailbroken devices there are entire alternative | ecosystems based around sideloading modded/pirated apps. They | are obviously full of pirated stuff, usually work by abusing an | enterprise cert from an endless list of Chinese companies (not | insinuating anything bad, just firsthand experience), and they | probably have some nasty malware mixed in here and there as | well. Zero endorsement for any of these examples from the first | page of a DDG search, but you get the idea: | | https://www.tutuapp.com/pc/ | | https://iphonecake.com/ | | https://sideload.tweakboxapp.com/ | | https://ipaspot.app/ | | https://www.valuewalk.com/2019/04/spotify-up-tweakbox-users-... | pvg wrote: | _I think I just realized while Apple doesn 't allow side | loading apps. Because if you could side load apps, then Chinese | citizens_ | | You think that's the reason, since 2007 (and every year after) | when Apple also didn't allow sideloading apps? It seems a | little fanciful, at best. | Veen wrote: | That's a possible reason, but do you have any evidence that | it's the real reason beyond it being vaguely plausible while | making Apple look as bad as possible. Preventing side-loading | improves iOS device security, which is just as plausible as | your theory. | jedberg wrote: | > do you have any evidence that it's the real reason | | This lawsuit. | | > Preventing side-loading improves iOS device security | | Yes, this is true. Welding the doors to your house shut also | improve security. But it does so at the expense of usability. | There is a reasonable trade off between usability and | security and Apple makes an unreasonable choice. | altitudinous wrote: | In this thread - People complaining about Apple generally and | their own app review issues and not this specific case. | tobr wrote: | Also people complaining about the thread and not this specific | case. | altitudinous wrote: | I have nothing to say about the specific case - I think the | app reviewer has an extremely valid case if he was following | the app review process that Apple built. | zepto wrote: | He wasn't fired for following the review process. | | He was fired for _ignoring his supervisors_ to promote a | far right app developed by a financer of Steve Bannon. | dirtyid wrote: | Someone else already covered that this is Guo Wengui's app, same | man funding Bannon's rule of law society report on covid lab leak | recently. | | > Guo Media App does not contain violent content or incite | violence; | | ... | | Hilarious recent drama among antiCCP Chinese diaspora in west: | | Surrey assault victim: "They attack the real anti-CCP, actual | pro-democratic activists" | | >The protesters are part of the New Federal State of China | campaign created by Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui, who are also | involved in the media startups GNews and GTV. Associates have | staged protests against critics in other cities around North | America. Gao has been critical of Guo, who is wanted for | corruption in China. | | https://thebreaker.news/news/surrey-protest-victim-talks/ | | ... | | Granted CCP hates Guo. Like a lot. But I think this is mostly | western politics due to Bannon association. If Apple was really | sucking Chinese dick, Epoch Times would not be #2 app in | magazines and newspapers. | | https://apps.apple.com/us/app/epoch-times-live-breaking/id67... | | E: is this about pulling from Chinese app stores? That's even | less of a non story. Peak American exceptionalism thinking Apple | should decide whether Chinese dissidents get media platforms in | China or not. Not. | antihero wrote: | I mean the guy sounds like total shitheel, but how is it | "American exceptionalism" to be against helping enacting state | censorship? As a libcom and an internationalist I think no | government has the right to determine what information people | do or do not see. If your state relies on information control | to exist then it is a fucked state. | | Get out of here with this pro-authoritian crazy talk. | smolder wrote: | We have shady information control practices in the western | world too, but it's about spreading lies or spinning things | to distract from the suppressed truth rather than censoring | directly. The effects can be similarly sinister or even worse | in some ways. It feels like the US public is losing their | collective mind due to conflicting narratives on everything. | There's no big majority consensus on even some basic facts as | of late. | will4274 wrote: | > The effects can be similarly sinister or even worse in | some ways | | You really think letting liars speak is worse than | forbidding anybody except the ministry of truth from | speaking? | smolder wrote: | I didn't say "it is worse", and, no. The comments and | downvotes here are getting as bad as Reddit. It's | supposed to be a place for intelligent discussion. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | In an odd way, we also had a glimpse of real information | control vis-a-vis Hunter story. If that did not open | people's eyes, I am not sure what would. The system of | control is different and distributed, but the principle | remains largely the same. | dirtyid wrote: | Every state requires information control to exist, secrecy is | basis of national security. Multinational companies | conforming to local laws and customs is status quo. Most | companies sell products and services not ideology even if | ideology gets imbued via marketing. Sometimes pre-existing | ideology comes preloaded in because regionalization and | cultural competence cost extra. The entire trade will export | western values narrative - an economic bug that westerners | have conflated as a soft power feature because non-western | markets have been too small to advocate for themselves. Now | they're not. | | Global market =/= global values and global trade is not trade | between peoples but governments. CCP wants to import phones, | NBA games, blockbuster films not western values and certainly | not western propaganda. No one expects US soybean farmers to | bundle exports with bibles, but somehow expect Google or | Facebook to operate in China without complying to censorship | laws that domestic companies must adhere to. And the have the | audacity to suggest these western platforms are "banned" in | China when they chose not to operate there legally. That's | peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with | imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign | policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments | subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. | jessaustin wrote: | _Every state requires information control to exist..._ | | If that were true, rational people would be anarchists. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | "No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with | bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in | China without complying to censorship laws that domestic | companies must adhere to. And the have the audacity to | suggest these western platforms are "banned" in China when | they chose not to operate there legally. That's peak | exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate trade with | imperialism and stop expecting companies to execute foreign | policy. US companies are already foreign policy instruments | subject to National Security Letters, that's enough. " | | The argument is interesting. You may be right about non- | western markets. I am not an expert so I won't address it. | | "Global market =/= global values and global trade is not | trade between peoples but governments" | | And not both? It is possible that I am misunderstanding the | statements. Could you elaborate? | | "CCP wants to import phones, NBA games, blockbuster films | not western values and certainly not western propaganda." | | We all want things. But NBA, films, and values ARE all part | of western propaganda. CCP may think it is cutting all the | dangerous thoughts from the movie, but all it does is | creating a streisand effects resulting in bans on number 8 | and winnie the pooh. On the flip side, why does US have to | comply with Chinese propaganda efforts? | | "No one expects US soybean farmers to bundle exports with | bibles, but somehow expect Google or Facebook to operate in | China without complying to censorship laws that domestic | companies must adhere to." | | I genuinely do not understand the comparison. Could you | provide a different example? | | "And the have the audacity to suggest these western | platforms are "banned" in China when they chose not to | operate there legally." | | Well, both statements are true are they not? They are | banned, because they do not adhere to local laws. Stuff in | Turkey is banned too and they are called out on it. It is | not audacity to say water is wet. | | "That's peak exceptionalism mindset. It's time to separate | trade with imperialism and stop expecting companies to | execute foreign policy. US companies are already foreign | policy instruments subject to National Security Letters, | that's enough. " | | I am stealing "peak exceptionalism' phrase. I agree with | the sentiment, but it is not realistic based just one the | comments you made at the very beginning ( "Multinational | companies conforming to local laws and customs is status | quo."). | dirtyid wrote: | > And not both? | | International trade across border is fundamentally state | to state agreement. Chinese citizen #1 does not directly | engage with US company #2 when they make a commercial | exchange. Geographic border is quite literally a physical | barrier where transaction friction is reduced with | instruments like trade deals. It's always mediated by | laws from both parties (import/export controls) and | sometimes a superbody (multilateral organizations). | Smuggling wouldn't be a concept if relationship is | between people to people. | | > ARE western propaganda | | Everything is political, but some politics are more | acceptable than others. Censorship in media has gotten | pretty overwhelming in PRC last few years, but "cutting | all the dangerous thoughts" is gross hyperbole. Marvel | blockbusters do fine in both China and US with minimal | editing. Ditto with NBA before HK drama. Most western | brands for that matter. There's overlap of shared taste | in commercial goods and popular media, same can't be said | on actual political news / propaganda like this instance. | Especially this instance, if people knew what Guo is to | CCP. Cracking down on speech and foreign influence is | matter of priority and perspective. | | > different example | | Hard to think of one right now. Point is no one attaches | values to trade of commodity items. No one insists | McDonald's must sell pork/beef burgers in Islamic | countries or India because of values, but when it comes | to censorship and China/Vietnam, it's unreasonable for US | social media platforms to follow local requirements. | We're not even touching on a future where foreign | companies actively endorse Chinese propaganda to cater to | Chinese identity politics, instead of current reluctant | endorsement due to legal compliance. | | > why does US have to comply | | No one has to comply, just don't expect market access, | nor whine previous access is lost. | | > banned | | Dodgy Chinese brands vehicles aren't in US because | they're banned but because they don't meet safety | requirements. There are entire sectors of economy where | foreign companies are actually banned i.e. some financial | services. Implying western tech are banned is simply | false, see Bing. But it's the basis of lots of grievance | politics in tech, i.e. endorsing tiktok ban as reciprocal | when tiktok follows all US laws. Same is not true vice | versa. | | > not realistic | | Apple / Bing continues to operate fine in Chinese market. | FB / Google were working on Chinese compliant services a | few years ago. Maybe I'm misinterpreting. If you mean | multinationals being beholden to multiple jurisdictions | including home countries which supersedes everyone else, | then yeah that's a finicky problem especially in tech | when data can be weaponized. But that's a very broad | matter of strategic policy decisions. | user-the-name wrote: | > I think no government has the right to determine what | information people do or do not see | | The immediate consequence of this stance, if you take it | literally, is that you think distributing child pornography | should be legal. | | Either you think that, or you actually do think it's OK for | governments to limit some information. | malinens wrote: | We currently have issues with approving our apps with app store | as they demand using apple login. We have added it but they still | do not approve changes. that is so annoying as it blocks some | other things in our company... | kdo1617 wrote: | I recently published my first app to App Store and failed in | the same requirement. | | Guess I was lucky since It was approved a few hours after I | added it. | | However the bigger problem with Sign in to Apple is that they | don't follow the standard implementation of oauth/oidc as | pretty much everyone else does... | JimDabell wrote: | > However the bigger problem with Sign in to Apple is that | they don't follow the standard implementation of oauth/oidc | as pretty much everyone else does... | | The OpenID Foundation seems to disagree: | | > Apple Successfully Implements OpenID Connect with Sign In | with Apple | | -- https://openid.net/2019/09/30/apple-successfully- | implements-... | | > Thank You Too Apple | | -- https://openid.net/2019/10/22/thank-you-too-apple/ | erikrothoff wrote: | What are they saying is wrong now that you've added Apple | login? | malinens wrote: | They say app should be fully usable after apple login. We are | e-mail provider and we are not startup. After apple is | connected we ask user to enter existing credentials to add | apple to his account (90% of cases) or register a new one | (also You need to provide password there). Without password | IMAP does not work for example.. | vezycash wrote: | Does your app have sign in with google, Facebook? | | If not, what's their rationale for forcing you to implement | theirs? | echelon wrote: | Sue them! | | They are so blatantly a monopoly. | | 50% of American consumers do their computing with a company | that forces all interacting parties to jump through Byzantine | hoops and pay outrageous taxes. | | I'm sorry, Apple fans, but this company isn't fair to the rest | of the world. It's a dark specter, turning once open computing | into an arcane serfdom. | echelon wrote: | > Apple supervisors stated that the Guo Media App is critical of | the Chinese government and, therefore, should be removed from the | App Store. Plaintiff Pham responded stating the Guo Media App | publishes valid claims of corruption against the Chinese | government and Chinese Communist Party and, therefore, should not | be taken down. | | > Apple became aware of plaintiff Pham's criticism and defendant | Apple's managers responded by retaliating against plaintiff Pham | and ultimately terminating plaintiff Pham. | | Apple is a spineless piece of shit. | | How anyone can defend these assholes and the horrible things they | do to US software developers is beyond me. But to defend this - | their kowtowing to a regime that conducts slavery, rape, and | organ harvesting - that's appalling. | | Anybody jumping to disagree - I strongly encourage you to think | of all the suffering going on, and how this company would rather | make gobs of dirty money than take the moral high ground. | | We cancel people and companies for far less than this. | | Cancel Apple. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | I am no Apple defender, but I am not even sure what you | advocate by saying cancel, which has specific political and | cultural connotations. Do you want to boycott them? Say so. Do | you want US to stop using the services? Do you want financial | sector to divest? Do you want them to withdraw from China? Say | so. It is difficult for me to guess without projecting my own | thoughts on the matter. My recommendation is that you stop | saying 'cancel'. | | As for the suffering, while absolutely accurate and true, I | would like you to consider certain sad truth: | | "The tears of the world are a constant quantity. For each one | who begins to weep somewhere else another stops" | | You think people are suffering now, but they have been for a | while. The only difference now is that we can't pretend we | don't know about it. | AnHonestComment wrote: | Talking honestly about China or communists gets you | shadowbanned. | | I'm a good example. | | People wonder how the Holocaust happened or why IBM did | business with Nazis. | | What we're seeing is the answer. | barnacled wrote: | China are a god-awful totalitarian lying genocidal state and | Apple are ruthless hypocrites but as another comment here also | points out, there's real uncertainty around Guo Wengui (whose app | it is) and whether he in fact was corrupt (it's just difficult to | know given China's absolute lack of rule of law). | | Xi JinPing did kick off a huge crackdown on corruption so | everything's murky unfortunately. | | Will be interesting to see the outcome of this! | | EDIT: It is clear people are not actually reading what I said | here or the article. 'At this meeting, defendant Apple | supervisors stated that the Guo Media App is critical of the | Chinese government and, therefore, should be removed from the App | Store.' - this is what is claimed. I am pointing out that this | claim is not necessarily true (or at least not as clear-cut as | this) and if so it makes you question the whole thing somewhat. | | For the record I DESPISE censorship and DESPISE the CCP and | DESPISE apple's rank hypocrisy. | | But I also care a great deal about accuracy and truth hence my | pointing this inconsistency out. | MikeUt wrote: | Suppose he _was_ corrupt - does that justify censorship? | | Does everyone that is corrupt get censored, or is it | selectively applied? | barnacled wrote: | Can you re-read my post and explain which part of it | advocates for censorship? | | You (and the downvoters) have entirely misunderstood what I | said. I thought opening with 'China are a god-awful | totalitarian lying genocidal state and Apple are ruthless | hypocrites' would make it abundantly clear my stance on this. | Apparently not. | depressedpanda wrote: | You are getting downvoted because you leverage criticism | against | | 1) China 2) Apple | | Especially the latter is an egregious sin on HN, for some | reason. | shaolinspirit wrote: | I like apple devices, I always hated to develop for them. The | burden of review on app store is just too much. I would rather | prefer to do a web app and to be free, to make quick releases | instead of chatting with apple reviewers for weeks when you need | to publish some critical release. I don't need apple customers, | neither they payment system. Web is king. | zepto wrote: | How does this have any relevance to the linked piece? | TeeWEE wrote: | Releasing apps for the App Store is also a nightmare to me. | Every reviewer reviews your app differently. | | I like that apple only allows apps of a certain quality. But | some guidelines are multi-interpretable.. Causing issues when | submitting app updates. | threeseed wrote: | Mobile web apps are universally terrible. | | So if you want happy customers then a native app is a | necessity. | meibo wrote: | They are terrible because Apple sabotages the ecosystem that | enables them by crippling the necessary APIs in Safari. | | PWAs can be a great experience, and they already are on | android and desktop when they're well done. | throw14082020 wrote: | can you provide some examples, preferably the best you can | find. I'm curious what great experiences of PWAs actually | mean, as I myself have not found any. | nicoburns wrote: | Tinder is a good example from a mainstream company. Also | Facebook: better tha there mobile app. | valuearb wrote: | Facebook is only better in the web in that it's harder to | track you. Uploading images, videos etc anything complex | sucks. | | I say this as someone who deleted the Facebook app and | only uses web because of tracking. | matwood wrote: | I don't know about great, but using Twitter as PWA on the | iPad was better than the app b/c the iPad app was so bad. | The app has since gotten better though. | StavrosK wrote: | I don't know if it's a PWA by some strict definition, but | Fastmail has always been the best web app I've seen. | JKCalhoun wrote: | Looking at the replies to your comment, it appears there | is a certain category of app that is better on the web | (although it sounds like in many of those cases it is | because their native app is so poorly implemented). | | So, we're not likely to see video editing software on the | web surpass native any time soon. | Aeolun wrote: | Little Alchemy 2 is a PWA and it's been great since I | installed it on my home screen. | asutekku wrote: | PWAs are far from good experience. The user experience just | in clicking a button in a PWA vs native app is miles away | from each other and that does not even need any special | APIs. Sure, it's easy to develop but it's inferior to | native apps as long as the web rendering tech is not on the | same level as native | holoduke wrote: | I would argue that the render engine of web (CSS) is much | more sufisticated than Apple's and Android's UI component | frameworks. A well written single page fully clientside | rendered web app can be as fast and good-looking as a | native app. In my opinion it's easier to develop as well. | [deleted] | jamil7 wrote: | I've done a lot of web development and iOS development | (not so much Android so can't comment too much). I don't | really agree with most of this statement at all. | | The web is a powerful platform for a lot of reasons but I | don't agree that it's easy to develop for, iOS is a much | less hostile and predicatble environment to run client | side code in. I also don't believe that CSS/HTML are | particularly well suited to rich mobile applications in | comparison to UIKit or SwiftUI. I still write PWAs and | native apps and don't see why they can't coexist. | Proponents of the PWA approach seem to really want PWAs | to replace native development. | | There is a lot of functionality and APIs that native apps | have access to on both platforms, I'm not sure I see the | point in browser developers implementing every single one | of them when a subset can cover 70% of JSON-viewer type | app needs, the remaining niche can be written as native | apps. | numpad0 wrote: | Is PWA bad or is the _whole web_ built on top of a Text | Markup Language just bad | valuearb wrote: | Yes. | jiofih wrote: | It's been at least four years since the artificial 300ms | for pointer events has been removed. | hn3333 wrote: | FWIW: As a dev I've made both contact with Apple and with | Google reps and it was like day and night. Apple actually | offers support and tries to resolve my problems while Google | feels like getting some bureaucracy done at a public office or | worse. (Speaking of European bureaucracy, YMMV.) | mekkkkkk wrote: | Well the difference is that as a general app developer you | barely ever need to interact with Google. As for Apple, you | do it a lot. I'd rather take rare and abysmal interactions | than constant, annoying ones. | | I've had numerous app rejections because of reviewers simply | incapable of reading instructions, and it's immensely | frustrating. Especially when important hotfixes etc. is put | on hold for days for no reason whatsoever. | | Instruction: Do NOT tap button X to log in, instead use | method Z. | | Rejection: Tapped button X, could not log in. Your app is | broken. | | Welp, time to resubmit and wait for a couple of days to | possibly get the same rejection again. | | EDIT: To clarify, the login procedure is different and | simplified for test accounts, such as the ones reviewers are | using. Real users need to identify with real ID for (valid) | reasons. | gogopuppygogo wrote: | Years ago, a family member of mine hired a college student | to develop an informational application for their small | business. This app offered reference guide type information | for a niche. To set expectations, my family member paid sub | $10k for the entire app to be developed when mobile apps | were new. | | After a few years it had attracted a few thousand users but | needed updating and the developer was non-responsive. The | family member of mine was non-technical and had allowed the | developer to publish the app under their own developer | account. | | A saga begins that I won't bore everyone with the details | but basically this family member didn't want to lose the | thousands of users. They tried to get the developer to send | them the app to maintain but the developer was non | responsive. They tried to enforce their trademark on the | app but Google would only delist it. | | Now they had no listing at all for their company so they | tried to start over. They tried to create a new app with | the same name but Google's review process wouldn't let them | because another app had already existed with that name. | Armed with a trademark and people we knew who worked at | Google we got exactly zero steps further after three months | of trying to work with Google on the issue. | | Eventually, we tracked down the mother of the developer who | had ghosted on us and paid them to give us their developer | account. Where we showed the trademark, had the app re- | activated, and moved it to another Google account we | controlled. | | Basically, Google couldn't help us at all. It was a mess. | Eventually we got things sorted but we had to go around | Google. | | Was this Google's fault? Heck no. The family member got | unprofessional help from a student developer who ghosted on | them but Google didn't make it easy to fix the issue. They | made it impossible. | valuearb wrote: | The fault was thinking you could pay less than $10k and | get competent professional development devices for your | app. That's less than a month of a professional | developers time. I had to pay half that just to get the | interior of my house painted, and it took two people less | than a week. | | And without a maintenance agreement the developer isn't | going to help you, they have their own life to live. You | think they are going to take vacation days from their | next job to figure out that old code? As usual the | problem is the client. | | Full disclosure: I write this as a contract developer who | had to take over an active app on the store when the | client fired the previous developers, and tried to update | it themselves. I have to update 140,000 lines of code | with zero comments or documentation, and the previous | devs aren't accessible. In my case the clients screwed | themselves, but got lucky cause I'm very very good. | bartvk wrote: | So to recap: party Foo tries to take over the developer | account of party Bar, using trademark law. Google makes | this not possible. | | How is this a problem? | toast0 wrote: | Party Foo allows party Bar to release an app using Foo's | trademark. Party Foo wishes to release their own app | using their trademark, as they've rescinded the | permission of party Bar. Google makes this not possible. | | How is that not a problem? Yes, parties Foo and Bar | probably used the wrong procedure when releasing the app, | but can't fix that. | | Google has no exception handling ability, and it's awful. | You can't merge G suite organizations when there's a | corporate merger. Clearly, you should have known five | years ago, that you were going to be purchased by X. Same | story, no exception handling. | murkle wrote: | So it's not possible to steal accounts - sounds like a | good thing to me | mekkkkkk wrote: | That certainly sounds less than ideal. I have also had a | few interactions of this nature with Google, and unless | you have contacts in the company or have some sort of | partnership, it's very hard to get any form of manual | intervention. | | That being said, Apple is also known for being incredibly | draconian when it comes to account management. I don't | think you would have been in a better position on iOS. | | I think understaffed, off-shored and with a lack of | permissions is just the baseline when it comes to this | sort of tech support. | vinayak2110 wrote: | hi | dep_b wrote: | > Well the difference is that as a general app developer | you barely ever need to interact with Google. | | Those days are over. Want to access text messages because | you have 2 factor logins? Want to access phone logs because | your apps measures how much time you spent on the phone | with each of your clients?: | | Be prepared for a lot of bureaucracy. | | Of course you can't even access texts or calls on an iOS | device, but then again when that's the case none of your | customers can ever force you to build a feature around it. | wbl wrote: | Those permissions are rather easily abused so I'm glad | Google is protecting my privacy by restricting them. | dep_b wrote: | Sure but the bureaucracy was shocking | howlgarnish wrote: | Why do you have button X if you're not supposed to tap it? | Will all your users read, understand and follow your | instructions? | mekkkkkk wrote: | Sorry for being unclear. I updated my post. The service | uses swedish digital ID verification. This is not | feasible for reviewers. | ehutch79 wrote: | You can't be the only app doing this. Others must have | been approved. How did they handle it? | valuearb wrote: | You create special ids, and logins for Apple reviewers so | you don't have this problem. Or you decide that's too | much hassle and accept the extra days in review as a | different cost. | mekkkkkk wrote: | Don't get me wrong, most of the time they read the | instructions and everything works great. No issue. | | But the uncalled-for rejections happens enough that we | can never feel confident. As I say, it's a major | nuisance, but it isn't unworkable. | toast0 wrote: | The same way. Resubmit until a reviwer reads the testing | comments. | ksec wrote: | Lots of Apps have special log in system or even Apple | Review User account just for the reviewers. | | They will have the same hurdle. And resubmit again and | again and possibly; again. That is why many developers | are so frustrated. It isn't some one -off problems. It | has been going on for years. | | Just like the Butterfly Keyboard, it wasn't until a | journalist wrote about it and mainstream media pick it up | causing Apple PR damage before Apple acted on it. Just | the same with App Store review. This time with DHH. | StavrosK wrote: | Forgive my ignorance, but why would you ship an app with a | broken login system (or whatever) in the first place? | tasubotadas wrote: | Why do people deliver software with bugs at all??? | StavrosK wrote: | Agreed, why deliver an app with an egregious bug you know | about? | jessedhillon wrote: | Is it my imagination, or has people's ability to detect | and understand sarcasm just fallen off a cliff over the | past 1-2 years? | protomyth wrote: | It's been longer than that. I would expect this is a sore | point with people because few professions allow their | practitioners to knowingly ship defective products to | meet a deadline. | | Alternatively, why understand sarcasm when the lack of | understanding provides some folks with an amazing weapon? | StavrosK wrote: | It would appear so. | vunuxodo wrote: | Because the Powers that Be insist on making a particular | release date, consequences be damned. | | I am currently in this situation. | mekkkkkk wrote: | I updated the post. The normal login flow requires | swedish digital ID. Reviewers won't have access to that. | StavrosK wrote: | I see, thanks. I can imagine how frustrating that must | be, "I don't have a Swedish ID therefore your app doesn't | work". | mekkkkkk wrote: | It's very frustrating indeed! I don't know how many times | I've edited and attempted to clarify the instructions, | but I'm still getting bounces. I really sympathize with | the reviewers who are probably under a lot of pressure. | But it doesn't change the fact that a hotfix release of | our app on iOS is anxiety inducing. | Isn0gud wrote: | On a side note; Not having a Swedish ID in Sweden makes a | lot of things very cumbersome and some even impossible, | having one makes one of the most straightforward and | convenient bureaucracy systems I have experienced. | m-p-3 wrote: | I hope we'll reach a point where we have a better system | than a simple Social Insurance Number in Canada, which | has no cryptographic protection whatsoever and can be | major pain in the butt if leaked from a data breach like | with had with the Desjardins Credit Union. | mekkkkkk wrote: | Yeah. The increasing reliance on BankID in Sweden is a | blessing and a curse. For us swedes born into the system | it's incredibly convenient. | | On the flip side I've heard my fair share of horror | stories from expats that get locked out of necessary | services only because they don't have a social security | number and bank account (yet). And that process can take | a while. | nicoburns wrote: | As a practical solution, I wonder if you could provide | the reviewers with a fake id that you hardcode into the | backend for test accounts. Whcih could allow them to use | the same login UI (even if the underlying codepath is | different) | mekkkkkk wrote: | The ID login flow is basically UI-less. The user taps the | login button, a separate identification app (that | basically all swedes have) is launched, and as soon as | the authentication is completed the user is navigated to | the logged in view. It's a very seamless experience, and | a lot of swedish apps work this way. | | On the other hand it means that it's impossible to | determine which user is logging in until the proper auth | is complete. And thus you cannot have "special accounts" | using this flow. | nicoburns wrote: | Ah, the login flow is in a separate app. That does indeed | make it tricky! | ehutch79 wrote: | Your users will absolutely tap X. They will find your app | is broken. | gcmrtc wrote: | Well, that is what most of your users would have done | anyway. You dealt with a reviewer instead of multiple angry | users that couldn't log in, looks like the review process | works. | mekkkkkk wrote: | It's a different login procedure for test accounts (such | as the ones made available for reviewers). | ratww wrote: | Curious: any reason it can't be the same button? | mekkkkkk wrote: | I updated my post, the user facing login is using Swedish | digital ID, which naturally the reviewers do not have | access to. | [deleted] | valuearb wrote: | You need to do a better job documenting test logins and | instructions for reviewers. Not defending Apple, but don't | half-ass the things you control when you go to review. | mekkkkkk wrote: | I don't know how you got access to our developer console, | but you need to stop. | avree wrote: | Yeah, it's amazing how painful Google makes any sort of | developer support for a company that's supposed to be | "developer-centric". | | With Apple, you may have to convince them of your opinion, | but you can very quickly talk to a human who will reply with | an actual, thoughtful response. | | With Google, if you manage to get a human on the other side | of the line, you're probably weeks or months later, several | automated forms and replies deep, and completely confused. | pulse7 wrote: | <sarcasm>You may be liable for stealing Apple's 30% by not | participating in the App store. So please think again and | rather write an app...</sarcasm> | abhinav22 wrote: | My experience has been nothing like that. The developer portal | is definitely a bit buggy but all my apps have been reviewed | and approved very timely. Critical updates go through very | quickly. | | However I appreciate it's a big process and given the amount of | complaints online on how bad the process is, I put a lot of | extra care to make sure everything goes through very smoothly. | I use TestFlight a lot to test a lot and I look at the App | Store process as akin to sending my software to a publisher and | writing to CDs - I go to full efforts to make sure it is as | perfect as possible by the point I'm submitting. | | Also might have to do with number of users you have. Now I have | quite a few downloads on my main app, so I may be getting a bit | better treatment on priority fixes. | [deleted] | dang wrote: | The submitted URL was https://mjtsai.com/blog/2020/12/31/fired- | app-reviewer-sues-a..., which points to several other articles. | Of those, Volokh seems to have the most information, so we've | changed the link above to that. If there's a better URL, we can | change it again. | Animats wrote: | China's attempts to censor the rest of the world have become a | big deal.[1] Hollywood caved in some time back. The NBA caved. | Now Apple. | | There was an attempt in 2012 to pass the "Global Online Freedom | Act of 2012", prohibiting US companies from assisting foreign | censorship operations. Didn't pass. | | Apple's history of censorship is strange and amusing. They have, | at various times, caved in to both China and Russia. Sending the | word "Taiwan" from an iPhone with a Chinese country code at one | time crashed iPHones. [2] | | [1] https://fair.org/home/chinese-censorship-of-us-media-new- | spi... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Apple | boopmaster wrote: | There's a lot going on in that complaint. This US based employee | approved the app in the Chinese App Store, and it was not the | first screw up they had made. I'm sympathic to a lousy job | experience at any employer. While it sounds more like a DEI issue | at heart, and possibly a training or hiring failure, I'm doubtful | that the courts would not side with Apple here. | berdario wrote: | I haven't looked into the other screw ups, but I basically | agree with everything in the snippet of the complaint that | appears in the article, except one thing: | | "it should remain on the App Store as a matter of free speech" | | Free speech is a matter for the government, not for private | business decisions... If you as an employee are pushing back | against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to | have a bad time (i.e. risk losing the job, as it happened). | | That said, I'm curious about this Guo Media, and the first | thing I found when looking that up is: | | https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-g... | | "Free speech" is often used as a fig leaf for the alt right, so | this is unfortunately unsurprising :/ | | I wish good luck to Trieu Pham, even if personally I wouldn't | have picked Guo Media as the hill to die on | jokethrowaway wrote: | I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt | right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? | | American dems are definitely less hostile than conservatives | towards China so it feels natural than a wanted fugitive in | China would work with conservatives. | | I agree free speech doesn't apply here, given Apple it's a | private company, but it definitely aligns Apple with | Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatever other Big Tech company | that censures whatever they don't like (applying their own | policies only when they want). | | It's also interesting to see who's lining up with China. | btilly wrote: | _I don 't understand how that article is linked with the | alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right?_ | | Steve Bannon is strongly associated with the alt right. See | https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon- | fiv... for a list of reasons why, including his own | statements on the matter. | | That said the friendship of the two seems to be a case of | "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". With their common | enemy being the Chinese government. | | Steve Bannon opposes China because he believes in a | cyclical view of history, and the next cycle, the "fourth | turning", is likely to feature a war with the Middle East | and/or China. | | Guo Wengui opposes China because he thinks they will kill | him for corruption. To be fair, you don't get as successful | as he did in a corrupt environment without being corrupt | yourself, so China probably has reason to kill him. But it | is also a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle | black. | philwelch wrote: | There are, broadly speaking, two categories of people who | advocate for free speech: civil libertarians who advocate | for free speech on principle, and people with unpopular | opinions that tend to face censorship. | | In 20th century America, between approximately _Schenck v. | United States_ and _Brandenburg v. Ohio_ , those "people | with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship" | tended to be the ones on the far left--socialists, | communists, draft resisters--who fell victim to sedition | and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no | realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there | are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based | on the exact same arguments that once justified those | sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far | left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no | longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to | take it up (because it _is_ tactically useful for _them_ ). | tsimionescu wrote: | > As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far | left being censored | | This is entirely inaccurate, as most discussions about | labeling AntiFa a 'terrorist organization' will show, and | the huge investment many large companies make for | preventing unionization. It is true that some people on | the far left believe this, but they are entirely wrong. | geofft wrote: | > _As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far | left being censored_ | | The laws from 20th-century America are still on the books | and are still being enforced. I have literally heard of | people who, today, cannot advocate for their far-left | political views because it imperils their immigration | status. Here is a reminder from the USCIS as of two | months ago that membership in any Communist party causes | you to be ineligible to become a permanent resident: | https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-issues-policy- | guidan... | | Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, here is | someone self-censoring their left-but-nowhere-near-far- | left position (a fairly mainstream position) and being | attacked for their beliefs by a right-wing media outlet | that, ordinarily, claims to support free speech: | https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/30/wannabe-jeopardy- | host-k... | dahfizz wrote: | It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate | freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes | someone "alt right" is absolutely insane. | bjustin wrote: | "Free speech" is used by some people, more often alt- | right people than others, to mean freedom from | consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the | "right" to "free speech". That's presumably what the | original post mentioning this meant. | | There is no right to not face consequences from other | private citizens for bad behavior. | philwelch wrote: | "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee | freedom after speech" --Idi Amin. | winston_smith wrote: | (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is | considered one of the most brutal despots in world | history") | geofft wrote: | It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being | championed by anyone other than the fascists. | | I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer | believe that because universally everyone who cares | strongly about it is actually using it as cover for | pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. | If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I | don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society. | xibalba wrote: | > if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other | than the fascists. | | How about the ACLU? Are they fascist? | | Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with | because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you | are located. | | I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect | a little more, and think a little harder on this topic. | | Free speech is the font from which all other rights | spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks | like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, | not just the folks that pass purity tests. | alisonkisk wrote: | The ACLU now supports the 1A and the 2A SEPARATELY, but | is opposed to having both simultaneously at one event. | | https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech- | nazi... | vkou wrote: | Have you considered that some of the ways in which the | alt-right demands their rights may be fascistic? | | Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will | not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide | because, well, those folks are just making demands for | their rights? | dahfizz wrote: | "Jews will not replace us" is not an appeal to human | rights, it's just racist. I don't see the connection | you're trying to make. | | I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do | you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? | Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is | somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe | that: | | 1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this | makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your | party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and | therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by | opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti | fascist. | | I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free | speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests | alot, do you think protesting is bad? | chalst wrote: | Steve Bannon said of Breitbart when he was still in charge | of it that "We're the platform for the alt-right". Miles | Guo, the CEO of Guo Media, seems to have latched on to | Bannon's brand of political journalism as well-suited to | the objectives of at least some of his enterprises, e.g. | Gnews [1]. | | [1]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gnews/ | will4274 wrote: | > Free speech is a matter for the government | | No, it isn't. Free speech is a moral principle, and a matter | for philosophers, liberals, and all thinking people | generally. The first amendment is a specific codification of | the moral principle. It's the first amendment that is a | matter for government. | | While I agree with you that employees aren't in a good | position to advocate for free speech, consumers are - and we | should all be holding Apple to the standard Trieu Pham tried | to hold Apple to - not because of this or that law, but | because free speech is the right thing to do. | rhexs wrote: | Yes, "free speech" includes speech you don't like. That's the | point. | valuearb wrote: | Yes, and you aren't required to host other people's free | speech in your home, property or business. | mafuy wrote: | But in this case, the (Chinese) government induced a | company to annoy an employee. That actually is an assault | on free-speech, because it was not the company itself | that decided to do so. | | If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US | government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they | do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited | action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, | does not and must not make a difference. Else, the | protection of a citizen would be worthless. | | The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP | instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that | make it any better? | valuearb wrote: | Apple made a business decision. They are free to ignore | the Chinese governments wishes, at the cost of access to | the Chinese market place. | | The reviewer works for Apple, and has to follow Apples | rules, not make up their own. I also dislike that Apple | kowtows to the CCP, but that is their choice and given | the large revenues involved, I understand it. I won't | tell Apple Shareholders to leave a legal market and give | up a quarter of their share value, just in order to meet | my ethical standards. | | You may enjoy walking around your home wearing no pants. | That's your right. But when you go to a work place, it's | your employers right to tell you to put your pants back | on. | drewwwwww wrote: | the plaintiff's core allegation is that the other "screw ups" | were concocted (or at least exaggerated in severity) as a | retaliation for approving the app and/or discussing the | situation with peers. | LeicaLatte wrote: | Information control is no different from border control. Is it | wrong for China to enforce it via Apple? | LeicaLatte wrote: | Border control should, apparently, exclude information control. | Why? | objclxt wrote: | > Information control is no different from border control. | | Well, no, it's quite different. | | A border can be controlled, information cannot. East Germany | could stop people crossing the border to West Germany (at | least, those who weren't willing to take the risk of being shot | at). They couldn't stop West German radio stations being | broadcast back across the border. | | Information control isn't anything like border control, because | information is permeable to your physical border. You can | shoot-to-kill people crossing your borders, but good luck doing | that with electromagnetic radiation. | | At best you can jam it or attempt to control the flow | domestically (by, for example, banning radios), but in both | cases it's easily circumvented. | andybak wrote: | Not much info on the app but there's an Android version here: | https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.gnews.app&... | toyg wrote: | "The only civilian media in the world that regards takedown of | the Chinese Communist Party as the sole stand in the current | Expose revolution" | | I just don't understand why the PRC would have a problem with | this. /s | FpUser wrote: | Except for a couple of short contracts I am trying to ignore | mobile app market. I just can't stand that I need anybody's | permission to install / sell my products. Instant critical | updates delivery that saved my bacon quite a few times is also | out of question on mobile. I am aware about sideloading on | Android but how many regular users are willing to follow through | on that model. | sneak wrote: | It's Apple's fault that they've built a system that is so | perfectly suited for state-mandated censorship. | | They had to have known this would have happened. The lack of | sideloading on iOS doesn't just protect users from malware: it | protects repressive governments from criticism and protects | corrupt organizations with political power from reporting and | attempts at organization or reform. | | Furthermore, it's reprehensible for Apple to tout their | commitment to human rights, but also appoint themselves the | decider that you're not permitted to choose to see nudity in the | apps on a device that you purchased. Only assholes decide for | other competent adults what they're not allowed to watch, see, or | read. | | Inserting rent-seekers hellbent on surveillance into every single | little purchase we engage in on a daily basis is the worst thing | that's happened to our society in a very long time. | cageface wrote: | Yes this exactly. If Apple insists that they have absolute | control over what you can install on hardware that you | ostensibly own then they also bear the blame for for kowtowing | to every jurisdiction's whims. | | The ability to install the software we want on hardware we own | should be every user's irrevocable right. Wrap it in three | layers of warnings and opt-in dialogs if necessary to protect | people but it needs to be possible. | | Maybe you trust Apple enough to decide what software can run | but are you also comfortable giving this power to whoever is in | power in your government at any given time? It's an extremely | dangerous precedent. | yawaworht1978 wrote: | The firing might be legal and within the selective corporate | guidelines, however, to me, this is the final straw, will never | buy or even use any apple product again. The cowardice displayed | by the managers and the company bending to a hysterical | authoritarian regime borders a comedy. Too often have people | "just followed orders" in the name of a payslip. Apple is a | company of crooks (tax evasion, in bed with the chinese | government) with a clientele of mostly fanboys/fangirls. | simonh wrote: | Ok, so who do you go to that isn't? Even Fairphone is up to | their eyeballs in Chinese suppliers and they say in their own | literature they can't account for all their upstreams. | | Apple are always the ones that get walloped publicly on issues | like this, and actually I'm ok with that. It's good these | issues get air time at all, if Apple didn't exist and it was | all Microsoft, Samsung and such none of this would ever get out | and if it did nobody would care. But pretending this is all | about Apple, slagging them in a comment and then going and | buying the next Chinese made gear from Amazon or whoever is | just brushing this under the rug. | strogonoff wrote: | Purism's Librem 5 seems to be a worthy alternative. They | publish[0] schematics and aim to allow users to verify that | hardware hadn't been altered by a supplier. | | [0] https://puri.sm/posts/a-different-kind-of-transparency/ | simonh wrote: | Both efforts are great and well worth pursuing, but Purism | don't really talk at all about their hardware supply chain. | Their focus in on the software and end user privacy, so | they're exposed to exactly the same hardware supply chain | risks. | strogonoff wrote: | Disclosing suppliers implies existential possibility of a | supplier that can be trusted. A user with heightened | security needs understands that the only way to guarantee | supplier trustworthiness is to personally be present at | the factory. | | Disclosing schematics (open-source hardware) and board | x-rays removes the supplier trust requirement. A user | with heightened security needs can diff received hardware | with the reference (don't trust; verify), or build their | own phone to the spec. | joncrane wrote: | >they say in their own literature they can't account for all | their upstreams. | | Sounds to me like a) at least they're trying and b)they're | being honest. Still a significant moral upgrade over most of | their competitors. | simonh wrote: | Oh absolutely, I've got a lot of respect for that team. I'm | just saying even if you're wiling to really go the extra | mile this can still happen. I think the only way to really | address it is to put the blame squarely where it actually | lies, with the people doing it. Holding manufacturers to | account does play a role in flushing these problems out | into the open, but we need to be realistic about the limits | of what we can expect from them. | Schiendelman wrote: | Isn't Apple doing both a and b? They seem very open about | struggling with suppliers, commit to goals they can use | their clout to impact, and report on those goals using | third party verification. | dann0 wrote: | You're welcome to your view. But do keep in mind that one needs | to follow the laws of each jurisdiction in which they operate, | regardless of your opinion of that "rightness" of the laws. | | Your breathless rhetoric is pointless too. When was the last | time you actually bought or used an Apple device? You formed | this view well before now, and now you're just posturing. | vbezhenar wrote: | Isn't it example of <<people "just followed orders" in the | name of a payslip>> quote? Apple could withdraw from Chinese | market losing customers but staying clean of accusations. | scns wrote: | What would their shareholders say? | dnh44 wrote: | Until they move all of their production out of China | withdrawing from the Chinese market is impossible. | saurik wrote: | Somehow Android phones exist in China, and somehow most | of them allow you to install arbitrary apps. Apple | _chooses_ to build a platform amenable to censorship. | yawaworht1978 wrote: | Less than a month ago, a laptop. It is going back to where it | came from tomorrow as soon the shops open. The jurisdiction | claim is ok but this case hit "home" , I understand a US | based employee lost the job based on this. | | Calling the owner of the app a dissident sounds a lot like | aparatchik rhetoric to me, he was never convicted personally | yet and that does not make the app reviewer a dissident. | | Further, apple is assuming the hypocritical moral high | grounds (shouting to be privacy pioneers) without backing it | up when it counts. They bend in whichever direction the CCP | aks them on demand for a buck/Renminbi ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-01 23:01 UTC)