Apple bows to authoritarian regimes, claims activist group

AppleInsider

An activist group claims Apple's alleged App Store censorship in Russia and Hong Kong attacks "fundamental rights" of its users worldwide.

Logo for Apple's App Store

The group, Great Fire, has previously accused Apple of censoring LGBTQ+ content on the App Store, allegedly in order to appease various worldwide governments. Now it's issued a pair of reports related to the group's stated aim of "keeping Apple accountable globally."

"The fundamental rights of millions are impacted when Apple does business with authoritarian regimes," says the group in its announcement of the reports. Issued under the collective name of AppleCensorship, one report details apps such as VPNs that have been removed in Russia.

"In the name of profit, Apple censors millions of users from all aspects of society," said Benjamin Ismail, AppleCensorship project director, "from activists and political figures to members of vulnerable minorities such as the LGBTQ+ community in Russia or religious and ethnic minorities in China."

"Apple's content curation policies represent a denial of the company's stated principles and values and show a lack of respect for privacy and the protection of users' rights," continues Ismail. "In Russia, Apple has enabled censorship of vulnerable communities while promoting apps that are used by the government for surveillance purposes."

Apple has previously been accused of hindering protests in Hong Kong by rejecting a voting app. Apple, and Google, also removed an opposition app in their Russian app stores.

However, Russian regulators have also complained over Apple's removal of the VKontakte social media app in the region. Apple also halted all online sales of its own in Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine.

Historically, Apple has said that it is complying with the laws of the country in which it is operating, when it faces accusations of censorship in a country. Apple has not responded to Great Fire's reports.

Read on AppleInsider

DAalseth

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Basically you can have a big Apple that is profitable and has the resources to develop great stuff, and have somewhat of an impact on improving things worldwide, or you can have a small local company that sticks by its core values above all else, but nobody ever heard of. You can’t have both. 

Apple Bows to Authoritarian Regimes 

Yeah, so does every other multinational corporation on earth. It’s the nature of the beast. 

What else is new. 

22july2013

DAalseth said:

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Yes, that's all true, but there are times when the public gets so upset about something, that worldwide boycotts can force companies to care about social issues and stop doing business in certain countries. For one example, apartheid ended in South Africa largely because of worldwide boycotts of companies that did business with South Africa.

I wouldn't mind if people boycotted companies that did business with dictatorships, like Saudi Arabia or China, but right now public consciousness is all about the environment, not about human rights. Maybe if we pointed out that China is horrible on the environment, (eg, they open 8 gigawatts of new coal powered electrical generation plants every 3 months) we could get the public to boycott any companies that did business with China.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emb_44G0tqk <---

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-coal-plant-approvals-surge-energy-security-trumps-climate-greenpeace-2022-07-20/ <--

xbit

About ten years ago, I worked for a company making a children's atlas app. I naively thought that it wouldn't be a particularly controversial product but it got removed from various local app stores several times due to what it did or didn't include.

We had to make some significant changes for the Chinese market in particular. None of this is new.

DAalseth

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Yes, that's all true, but there are times when the public gets so upset about something, that worldwide boycotts can force companies to care about social issues and stop doing business in certain countries. For one example, apartheid ended in South Africa largely because of worldwide boycotts of companies that did business with South Africa.

As I’ve said for decades, there is no such thing as Business Ethics. Apple and every other corporation will follow the money. They are in these countries because it’s more profitable to be there than not. If the backlash against them doing so hurts their bottom line they will reassess. In that respect South Africa is a good comparison. 

In that vein it should be noted that Apple is moving more and more of its manufacturing out of China. They are however not doing it for any ethical reason. They have just discovered the risk of relying on just one country. It impacted profitability so they are acting. 

mike1

So, their preference is to not do business at all and deprive the billions of Chinese or millions of others worldwide the opportunity to enjoy Apple products and perhaps even mildly empower the people in those countries. The all or nothing attitude is stupid.

22july2013

DAalseth said:

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Yes, that's all true, but there are times when the public gets so upset about something, that worldwide boycotts can force companies to care about social issues and stop doing business in certain countries. For one example, apartheid ended in South Africa largely because of worldwide boycotts of companies that did business with South Africa.

As I’ve said for decades, there is no such thing as Business Ethics. Apple and every other corporation will follow the money. 

Yes, absolutely yes. And if consumers boycott companies that do business with dictatorships, Apple will stop doing business with dictatorships. I'm not sure if you are getting my point that boycotts can change corporate behaviour, all because of corporate desire to make money. Boycotts can affect corporate income resulting in changed corporate behaviour.

lkrupp

These groups target Apple specifically because of its high profile and public virtue signaling about privacy, security and human rights. Others keep quiet and let apple take the hits. And rest assured if the U.S. government were to pass backdoor legislation forcing Apple to unlock customer data Apple would comply no matter how much the ACLU and U.S. activists slammed them for it. 

lkrupp

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Yes, that's all true, but there are times when the public gets so upset about something, that worldwide boycotts can force companies to care about social issues and stop doing business in certain countries. For one example, apartheid ended in South Africa largely because of worldwide boycotts of companies that did business with South Africa.

As I’ve said for decades, there is no such thing as Business Ethics. Apple and every other corporation will follow the money. 

Yes, absolutely yes. And if consumers boycott companies that do business with dictatorships, Apple will stop doing business with dictatorships. I'm not sure if you are getting my point that boycotts can change corporate behaviour, all because of corporate desire to make money. Boycotts can affect corporate income resulting in changed corporate behaviour.

Well, the particular Christian denomination I attend has long had a policy of recommending members not invest in companies who do business in Israel and other countries that the leadership deems incompatible with the denomination’s moral imperatives. Guess what? No one pays any attention to their directives, including the board of our local congregation. Why? Because the list of companies includes almost ALL of them. It’s a global economy in case you forgot.

bobolicious

DAalseth said:

Apple Bows to Authoritarian Regimes 

Yeah, so does every other multinational corporation on earth. It’s the nature of the beast. 

What else is new. 

... so much for 'think different' ...
...was Jobs Jobs Apple not embracing Flash despite the profit potential an example of this...?

DAalseth

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

22july2013 said:

DAalseth said:

You do business in a country, you abide by the rules of that country.
Sure it would be nice if Apple just stopped doing business in countries and regions that did not align with it’s values. If it did it would be the biggest technology company in the San Francisco Bay area only. Heck, there are parts of the US that are dramatically at odds with Apple’s core values, but Apple is still there, following local laws. (South Carolina and Texas for example.) To do anything else would violate the core business value of Apple, and every other corporation: To Be Profitable. 

Yes, that's all true, but there are times when the public gets so upset about something, that worldwide boycotts can force companies to care about social issues and stop doing business in certain countries. For one example, apartheid ended in South Africa largely because of worldwide boycotts of companies that did business with South Africa.

As I’ve said for decades, there is no such thing as Business Ethics. Apple and every other corporation will follow the money. 

Yes, absolutely yes. And if consumers boycott companies that do business with dictatorships, Apple will stop doing business with dictatorships. I'm not sure if you are getting my point that boycotts can change corporate behaviour, all because of corporate desire to make money. Boycotts can affect corporate income resulting in changed corporate behaviour.

The trick is getting enough people to do that. And getting enough pressure on governments to get them to support it with sanctions and incentives. South Africa succeeded, whereas things like Nabisco failed, because of this. At the end of the day Apple will stay in these terrible places until it costs them more to remain than leave. I think we’re on the same page here, I am perhaps a bit more pessimistic about it happening though. 

waveparticle

Does this group think anti-abortion laws in US states are OK? And what about "The fundamental rights of millions to immigrate to US"? LOL

9secondkox2

It’s not untrue. Apple does indeed bow to evil governments - to stay in business in those areas. Just like Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. 

muthuk_vanalingam

9secondkox2 said:

It’s not untrue. Apple does indeed bow to evil governments - to stay in business in those areas. Just like Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. 

Except, Google "chose" not to do business in China. So it is not like Apple does not have "options" or "precedents from competitors who are more vilified than Apple".

danox

I want Apple to cut-off the South Eastern USA and Twitter but its not going to happen.  

waveparticle

9secondkox2 said:

It’s not untrue. Apple does indeed bow to evil governments - to stay in business in those areas. Just like Google, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. 

China is doomed! 

lkrupp

Just stop the hypocrisy everyone. When your own pocketbook is affected you TOO will opt for the evil solution, just like you did when you had the choice to buy your clothes manufactured in the U.S. by unionized garment workers or from sweat shops in the east. You chose sweatshop labor. You chose to buy electronics from Japan in the 50’s and 60’s and you justified it by claiming U.S. products were inferior. 

22july2013

lkrupp said:

Just stop the hypocrisy everyone. When your own pocketbook is affected you TOO will opt for the evil solution, just like you did when you had the choice to buy your clothes manufactured in the U.S. by unionized garment workers or from sweat shops in the east. You chose sweatshop labor. You chose to buy electronics from Japan in the 50’s and 60’s and you justified it by claiming U.S. products were inferior. 

When I shop at any store I always look at what country the product was made in (cutlery, clothes, etc.) and I always make an effort to buy from free countries, even though it affects my pocketbook. Sometimes I can't find a product made in a free country, so in that case you could say I'm opting for the evil solution.

Madbum

Apple has to operate according to laws of said country and not USA or some crazy progressive group.

what would happen if some Indian company comes to US and says America must follow its laws in India? Where women must follow certain religious  guidelines and it’s also written into Indian law? 

Should that company be able to operate in USA not following us law?