But it seems very plausible to me that Apple was presented with credible information that this app was being used to organize violent attacks and that Apple made a reasonable choice to ban the app according to Apple's policies about following local laws as well as Apple's internal policies about apps causing harm. I think that can be the case regardless of anyone at Apple's views about the merits of the Hong Kong protests as a whole.
If they always wait for a court order, PR disasters happen, and polticians dredge up 'think of the children' arguments.
If they don't wait for an order they can become part of the machinery of ill-intentioned polticial or commercial forces.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
However, I still think waiting for an order, especially in tense environments, is the right moral choice. I concede it probably isn't the right economic choice a lot of the time.
Government, law enforcement and court are not separated in China, they all belonging to the same central government. So if you really want a court order, they’ll issue one quickly.
That’s the tricky situation. Companies must obey local laws, but local laws are built on behalf of central government, and court exists for protecting central government.
If the order came from the HK gov, citizens know who is responsible for it and can act accordingly. And I'd expect this to be the reason Apple received pressure to remove it "by themselves".
And what of Twitter and Telegram and Messenger and Gmail and Weechat and Outlook?
This is also the same organization whose spokesperson that called a protestor being brutalized by officers a "yellow object" and who have been routinely documented fabricating evidence. Taking their word at face value is patently absurd.
Tim's statement doesn't add up.
That would make it obvious that Apple is complying with law, and that they haven't "bowed to pressure" from either side.
If there is a claim that the app is violating law, then that should be validated by a judicial process, not by the operating nuances of a company.
If Apple are receiving reports from users that the law is being broken, they should be passing those on to law enforcement, and publicly complying with the response, not acting as their own arbitrator.