In this particular case, what problem would open platforms solve? The laws in Pakistan still exist and the social problem is not addressed. Or are you implying that Apple and Google should be on the hook for solving religious problems in other countries? If so, I think wanting companies to engineer social behavior in other countries is a dangerous path bordering on the unethical (IMO).
But having said all that, whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers? Ultimately, the app has to be downloaded from somewhere. Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that,etc ,etc. It's just whack-a-mole.
Why is this law good? The US has a long history of corporations owning too much in banana republics and bringing the US into pro-dictator political positions.
IANAL but this is only partially true from what I understand. It's legal if the bribe is "grease money". (Grease money is paying a public official to do their job properly and promptly, while regular bribery is paying a public official to do something they shouldn't. But the distinction between the two seems subjective or ambiguous in many possible scenarios.)
Do you have a source for that? I have run across instances of US companies using various schemes to avoid the appearance of bribes (usually involving paying a "consultant" a large amount of money and paying no attention to how the consultant gets the business done), but I know of none getting rid of their businesses in other countries.
I think they should not consider operating in that fashion. They can push for regulation themselves if on their withdrawal they want to prevent an advantage to less ethical US competitors who stay.
On principle, I sort of reject this notion that a giant corporation(s) should be encouraged to meddle in the internal matters of other countries. I think these kinds of moves will be perceived very differently by the locals. The famous line "They will welcome us as liberators with open arms..." (paraphrased) comes to mind :)
I think it is far better to promote your ideas peacefully using other means, rather than by forcing a government to adopt your views because you threaten them with economic consequences by pulling out of the country.
US companies won't be running Uyghur reeducation camps in China even though that is lawful in China and may be their best way to source the right labor.
Is everything happening anyway and with more cost by keeping a separation between US companies/nationals and crimes under US law? Sure. Is it still better? Mercenaries that come back having done "legal" things in foreign countries are a social plague and their connections to groups the US considers criminal are problematic.
To not pick only on China, any US national who works with spyware for the Saudi regime is a criminal under US law, and that is important because they need to be watched when they return to the US to prevent them from assisting in assasinations in US/Canada. Does it matter if the crown prince made their actions in Saudi Arabia legal?
In any case, I think we're way off topic here, trying to solve the worlds problems in the comment section. The last word is yours :)
Apple and Google reap the benefits of forced centralised control, but that is what allows those countries to very easily enforce these kinds of laws.
If it was easier for people to sideload apps, or there were many competing app stores, then people could get around theses bans more easily.
For example, if I could go to any website, on an iphone, and install an app very easily (Assume I choose to do so, via some setting), then it wouldn't matter as much if Apple banned the app from the app store.
> whats stopping a country from simply blocking their hosting servers?
They could do that, but if it was easy to install apps on a phone, then it would be very difficult for a country to block every website that hosts the app.
> . Okay, so then you move to a P2P system, so then the get their ISPs to block that
Governments are not infinitely powerful. An efforts to get around government internet censorship, sometimes work.
And the more methods there are of circumventing government censorship, the easier it is to do so.
Censorship has an effect. But it is not perfect. There is a spectrum of behavior, where it can be easier or harder to get around censorship.
I still don't see why a tech company in the US should be in charge of engineering social behavior around the world. In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
But the country already allows "unlocked" PCs to be sold in the country.
It is already allowing people to purchase devices that could work against the country.
> should be in charge of engineering social behavior
Intel is already selling PCs though.
Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics?
> In my opinion, this is a dangerous path.
So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
Because they made a mistake once, they should make it twice? Well, that isn't likely to convince them!
>Why is it so crazy to suggest that phone companies should act more like what intel is already doing, by selling unlocked electronics?
You seem to be really passionate about this, and somehow think that I oppose open platforms. I never said that, and I don't.
>So you think that any company that is selling unlocked devices, is going down a dangerous path? Really?
No, I don't think that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. This is simply not a good faith conversation. I'm out.. sorry.
What I am saying is that you are suggesting an extraordinary measure. In the same way that banning all PCs is an extraordinary measure.
Such a measure would have wide reaching consequences, and large costs. Most governments are not completely irrational. They respond to incentives, and if something is very difficult to do, then they are going to be less likely to do it.
And making all phones illegal, sounds like something that would be more difficult to do, than banning a couple app stores.
> No, I don't think that.
Ok cool. So then if the phone manufactures made it so their phones were all unlocked, which is what I am recommending that they do, then you would not say that this is going down a dangerous path.
Got it. You agree with my original position that they should sell unlocked devices.
Anyway, we're far far away from the main point now. I believe the best approach to the problem is solving it bottom-up rather than top-down. Practically speak as well, its going to be seen as a US company forcing "western morals" on a developing country.
The action you describe were tried anf they broke half the internet, and were backpedalled.
An "open platform" where every inexperienced user can install whatever they want on their device is a world where most every phone has several remote access malware/spyware packages installed on it.
Centralizing these functions is good, in some respects.
So the only reasonable complaint I could see against these companies now is "maybe they should have stopped doing business in that country" which would allow them to take the high moral road. Ofc that wouldn't necessarily result in better freedom for the people in the country, just fewer services than the rest of the world but it is a possible choice.
The fact that this is possible (worse on iOS) is the architectural and political tragedy of these app stores. A "provider of the platform" should have no power to have any say in what apps are installed on a user-owned device, in which case it would be impossible to coerce them into banning this or that.
What if end users who buy the device WANT the manufacturer to have that power, to keep their device malware- and spyware-free?