The problem lies with Pakistan and Apple and Google. If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store blocking them would be much harder. The entity creating the apps does not seem to have a commercial presence in Pakistan and the Pakistani government would have no jurisdiction over their actions. Having large commercial intermediaries with money on the line is really convenient when you want to get something censored.

From the article:

> The PTA also ordered shut a US-based Ahmadi site, TrueIslam.com, threatening its administrators with criminal charges that carry a $3 million fine. The decision may not be enforceable, since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan.

> If the apps in question could be installed without an App Store..

Android already allows side loading apps which don't have to come from an app store.

You're suggesting that if Apple and Google create an app-loading mechanism that makes it difficult for them to block an app, that Pakistan will simply let them off the hook.

I don't think so. Why wouldn't Pakistan simply require them to block it anyway?

> ...since the people who run the site, including Zafar, do not live in Pakistan

Not relevant. In this case, Apple and Google do business in Pakistan. You can argue they need to leave the market. If so, let's hear it. (Personally, I don't think that would have an impact or be the right way to go even if it did.)

I'm suggesting that Apple and Google should not be in position to decide what users run on their apps. On Android, it is rather close to it (sans push notifications, which are not available without Google Play services, and without which background apps running is somewhat problematic), but Apple is a completely opposite.

Not sure you're understanding what I'm saying.

The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so.

I don't dispute that Apple and Google do gatekeeping. They do. We can discuss the pros and cons of it. But that is simply not issue here.

> The Pakistani government can require that Apple and Google block certain apps and require that they maintain their ability to do so.

In general, we do not see governments doing this, no.

For example, I am sure that some people in Pakistan own intel/windows computers.

But Pakistan is not making laws that require every single intel/windows computer to block certain content, at the hardware level of the PC.

That is something that seems pretty difficult to enforce on all PCs.

If phones worked more like PCs, then it is likely that they would enjoy similar benefits.

It would be fun to watch someone calmly and rationally explain this impossibility to the legislator. Perhaps with slides about Turing’s universal machine and the x86 architecture. And while you have their ear, maybe convince them that end to end encryption can’t be safely backdoored, and that cellphone radios won’t crash planes. Legislators have so much respect and patience for technical arguments that limit their power.

>An alternate App Store operating in Pakistan would be subject to the same unjust laws as them.

Would they, though? How can you stop arbitrary APK downloads from the internet? Or a site that constantly changes its domain? Look at how blocking places like The Pirate Bay goes.

I think there is more to be said for the impact of Apple and Google leaving the Pakistani market than you grant.

Google is willing to leave the Australian market because they don't want to share revenues with the newspapers they skim for headlines, but they will suppress religious minorities to comply with theocratic governments.

These Western companies do not hold any values.

I’m missing something in this oft repeated argument. If non-App Store distribution is the solution, there’s Cydia (or whatever the kids these days use) right? And Android is “open”, isn’t it? Just like TPB, those should be hard to block. And if you want Apple to “sanction” this app distribution method, that gets you right back to the situation where Apple can be pressured by local governments.

If there is no gatekeeper, there is no one for Pakistan to pressure. That is the problem with gatekeepers, it's a single point of failure.

It would hurt a bit though if Pakistan did not have Google's and apple's services though. So oppressing people would come at a price.

They can't ban a windows pc software like this as it's not walled garden. When phones come with app store, they must be responsible.

The problem here lies with the Nazis - not IBM.