They can't because Saudi Arabia also owns part of Lyft (2.3%):

https://www.reuters.com/article/lyft-kingdom-holding-ma/saud...

So if they're not happy they'll sell their parts? Win-win.

Or they'd buy more and put a stop to advertising campaign.

That's a 7.7% delta. If there was a 7.7% price delta then people would opt for Lyft every time.

It's like those starburst things on foods at the supermarket. "Lift: 7.7% less Saudi Arabia!"

SA is diversifying as they know their oil empire is failing.

I live in NYC and dont use either. Juno FTW.

I... I think that was the joke. :)

What we really need with respect to Saudi Arabia is a popular campaign similar to the one that was directed at South Africa in 1980s. Boycott everything they have a stake in. Push your government to embargo everything they buy or sell. They're in a much weaker position than SAR, too, in terms of what they need to import, so it'd be much more effective.

They’re still the predominant player in the world oil markets, and the leader of OPEC. Oil is too deeply ingrained in the modern economy to seriously consider boycotting them, and even if possible, the resulting economic shock from a successful boycott would be severe.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,

For fear they should succumb and go astray;

So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,

You will find it better policy to say: –

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,

No matter how trifling the cost;

For the end of that game is oppression and shame,

And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Unless you conquer Venezuela first.

i think I am actually going to switch to Lyft after reading this

Software isn't the only investment they do though. They also invest in electric car companies (which prompted Musk to threaten to go private), companies that do major infrastructure/construction, industrial manufacturing, virtual reality and machine learning, chemicals and materials, aerospace, etc. Not using an app is easy, but if you really want to escape them you'll have a fairly hard time doing so. They even own 25% of Arm Holdings, so better toss that cell phone and tablet.

Same here, I didn't realize that Saudi Arabia was a huge investor. That sickens me.

Don't worry, they own some Lyft too.

Less, though. So Lyft it is. Not that there’s really any way you can ever control who owns shares of a public company, but if the government or its proxy is on record as a large shareholder, that’s something.

“Activism” without sacrificing convenience. Perfect. I suppose the really important part is that you get to tell your friends why they’re not as woke as you whenever they get an Uber.

It’s interesting seeing people admit to their fake outrage nowadays.

I wonder how many forgo products made in communist countries?

Neither are public companies.

Ok thanks, that makes the decision easier then.

Back to yellow cab, the bastion of human rights.

Yellow cab kinda sucks though... most people weigh multiple factors and aren’t as inflexible as you imply.

This is a great idea. But outside of this would anyone be interested in meeting up at tech companies and protesting?

It’s interesting that we’re all terrified of big tech’s growing base of power over our lives, yet more and more we expect big tech to take care of problems that governments are typically responsible for.

Big tech is already very powerful, and there are very few feasible ways to stop that. But it is a bit more feasible to demand that big tech use its power in certain ways. They are already at the point where almost anything they do will have an impact with moral implications, the way that an elephant walking through a field is going to crush some flowers or grasses. (See, for instance, Twitter aiding the Arab Spring by basically just existing, Facebook aiding the Rohingya genocide by basically just existing, and WhatsApp enabling mob violence in India by basically just existing.)

So, we might as well demand that they step on the things we wish them to step on.

This quickly leads to unintended consequences. What happens if a large group of people (perhaps wearing red hats with a four letter acroynym) decide they want big tech to step on a flower you hold dear?

I don't think I'll be able to prevent them from making that demand simply if I don't make demands either. (I certainly don't think that they're not smart enough to realize that a demand could be made until they see me make one, for instance, nor that they're that exact shade of polite that thinks this is an illegitimate tactic until they see it used at which point it becomes legitimate.) So I don't think this is, in any way, a consequence.

Even asking big tech to step on them seems to have a better chance of accomplishing my goals.

> I don't think I'll be able to prevent them from making that demand simply if I don't make demands either. (I certainly don't think that they're not smart enough to realize that a demand could be made until they see me make one, for instance, nor that they're that exact shade of polite that thinks this is an illegitimate tactic until they see it used at which point it becomes legitimate.)

It's not that they won't make demands, it's that they'll use your demands to legitimize theirs. If you don't make any then you can credibly defend against theirs by saying that nobody should. If you do, what will you say to theirs? Do as I say not as I do?

> Even asking big tech to step on them seems to have a better chance of accomplishing my goals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

If my demands were going to be listened to, then no legitimizing is necessary for anyone. If legitimizing were necessary, then their demands are useful because they legitimize mine, no?

I'm not interested in defending against theirs by appeal to some principle that I don't think anyone believes in either way. I'm interested in making the case that I'm right and they're not. If I'm not right, I shouldn't win the argument, they should. And I am right and big tech is run by people who aren't smart enough to understand why, we're all screwed anyway so whatever.

I have trouble distinguishing the "don't legitimize it" argument from, say, "You shouldn't engage in political attack ads because it legitimizes the other side using them," "You shouldn't have an army because it legitimizes other countries having an army, and what if they invade you one day," and so forth. Without some concrete reason to believe that the other side either wouldn't or couldn't use a tactic, refusing to use it on principle is just planning to lose.

> If my demands were going to be listened to, then no legitimizing is necessary for anyone. If legitimizing were necessary, then their demands are useful because they legitimize mine, no?

That's assuming you're in a symmetric position. If they show up and argue that we should censor pornography using a definition that covers most forms of gay culture, the pro-gay coalition and the anti-censorship coalition may comprise enough of a majority to prevent it.

Whereas if you show up and argue that we should censor apps you don't like, maybe they don't have enough support to defend against you even with the anti-censorship coalition.

So you win the battle and the war continues. But now the anti-censorship coalition is dead, because you can't hold together a bipartisan coalition that only benefits one party. So when the other side comes back and wants to censor gay culture again or remove apps that "violate immigration laws" or demands that search results not be "biased" against religious conservative viewpoints, you'll have given up ground useful in preventing those things.

> I'm interested in making the case that I'm right and they're not. If I'm not right, I shouldn't win the argument, they should. And I am right and big tech is run by people who aren't smart enough to understand why, we're all screwed anyway so whatever.

That's assuming winning is binary, either you get everything or nothing. But it's possible, indeed likely, for both sides to lose by just hacking each other to death piece by piece.

When censorship is made easy, it happens more often. The ban list grows until we end up in beige neutrality hell and the only thing left is pop music and corporate propaganda.

And it's not just about convincing the tech companies. If platforms don't censor, people can respect that and fight their battles without them. But once you bring them into the fray, you're going to get calls for legislation. Then it's Congress deciding what's allowed and what isn't, which they've repeatedly proven to be spectacularly bad at even when they have good intentions, and more to the point the opposition is in the majority as often as you are there.

> I have trouble distinguishing the "don't legitimize it" argument from, say, "You shouldn't engage in political attack ads because it legitimizes the other side using them," "You shouldn't have an army because it legitimizes other countries having an army, and what if they invade you one day," and so forth. Without some concrete reason to believe that the other side either wouldn't or couldn't use a tactic, refusing to use it on principle is just planning to lose.

What happens when you apply that logic to other scenarios? Preemptive nuclear strikes. Concentrating your political opposition into internment camps, or just murdering them as Stalin did. Licensing publishers so that only information pre-approved by the state can legally be distributed.

The other side could do it so we'd better do it first? Pretty glad that wasn't JFK's policy or Reagan's.

There is a difference between having the ability to do something and actually doing it. It's the difference between having an army and invading a foreign country.

For what? So Apple removes the app from the store. Does that materially impact Saudi Arabi's institutional oppression of women?

Yes. The app makes it much more difficult for women to subvert the oppression. Before the app the government used little paper slips to grant travel permission, now the "guardians" get SMS notifications when a woman's passport is scanned.

So, how will getting rid of an app stop the SMS notification system?

I’m not advocating that anybody DDOS their SMS system with fake alerts. But at least an app protects against that to a greater degree than an SMS solution. The app creates a safe space for oppression.

How will getting rid of the technology that makes this possible stop it?

Little by little. Yes faster ways would be better... got any?

The app is not the technology that makes this possible. It's just a webview around their website, and the SMS messages (not push notification) are sent directly to the phone via the cellular network.

Will anyone be able to silently leave the country if this app was pulled from the store? No, the SMS messages would still be sent, because they have nothing to do with the app.

Yes. Creating safe spaces for slavery and oppression is not what the App Store should be doing. It may not seem like much but every bit helps.

On one hand I think Apple and Google should drop this, and never should have hosted it. On the other hand I disagree with your assesment that “every little bit helps.” Too often these largely symbolic acts do little more than assuage guilt, they don’t improve anyone’s life. Think of it this way, if you’re riddled with cancer, and I offer you a single dose of chemo, you might reasonably complain that I’ve done nothing for you. If I then shrugged and said that at least I tried, and every little bit helps, you’d be well within your rights to laugh in my face.

Sometimes helping just a very little bit is as good as doing nothing, or even worse, because doing nothing at least is unequivocal in terms of moral culpability. In this case we’re talking about Saudi Arabia, a country with vast riches because we all buy their oil and kiss their asses. It’s like my government (U.K.) crying about Yemen while selling the Saudis more weapons.

Helping is a good idea, we shouldn’t host these apps, shouldn’t sell them weapons, and frankly shouldn’t dare to pat ourselves even slightly on the back for it.

If CEO's don't care about women in Saudi Arabia do you think they care about women in the USA? We have to start somewhere.

pfft can't they just go back to building giant penis shaped buildings?