It sure seems additive in this case. Google & Apple can choose not to do business in regulatory regimes that are oppressive in nature. That obviously comes at a direct cost of lost revenue from abstinence. It is a deliberate choice to do business anywhere at all. The simple fix here as you say, would be to stop doing business when forced to enact business practices that further oppression.

Make no mistake, it is monetary greed that drives the choice to assent to this.

If they choose not to do business will that fix the problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away?

Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question.

The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression.

How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression?

(I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc.

In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression.

So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case.

In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)

Oppressive regimes even of the most extreme order still need to deal with reality and the choices of other parties that aren't fully within their control. If Google/Apple were to take a stand here and walk away, it would put tremendous pressure on Pakistani government, and make this a hot button issue. Imagine the entire nation waking up one day to find that their apps no longer function because their leaders made choices that they likely weren't even aware were being made. It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. Pakistan is a democracy, however broken it may be, and you can sure bet that other political parties would step in to fill this role.

> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people.

I mean no, that's definitely not the analogy. When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. It's not some innocent bystander thing, they literally have to write code or take other actions to make this happen. Remember, the status quo is that the apps stay in the store today. An explicit action is required to change that.

China did it. Many countries routinely block Google stuff.

> It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders.

How can we be certain of that? I think many people drastically underestimate the number of people who a) don't care b) are invested in the regime c) gullible d) care, but won't do anything because they don't want to rock the boat, e) care, want to rock the boat, but won't because protesting is still not without some danger.

Yes, sure, other political parties would do whatever they do. Does that work? Not really. (Maybe over long-long periods of time.)

> When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression.

Agreed. Yet it's close to meaningless to look at it in a vacuum. Their choices are a) comply, don't even put up a fight, b) comply, try to exhaust legal options, b) stop doing business there.

I'm asking how to weigh those. What's best for the people of Pakistan. What's best for this particular vulnerable/oppressed group? What's best for all people?

There is obvious choice: dont give yourself the ability to control and sensor , and then be surprised when governments want you to press the button.

> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)

Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.

I recommend everybody to do so too. But not for this direct moral reason. (Which I'm honestly and sadly too ignorant and uncertain about.) I think there's room for smaller/niche providers, a subculture of self-hosters.

I am not sure if it is that simple, and I think companies have little choice but to be greedy, because if they choose not to be greedy, another greedier company is all but guaranteed to prevail. I suppose it could be argued that companies the size of Apple and Google are not bound by the same constraints as smaller companies. But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers? What about all the people who would be deprived of Apple and Google products/services?

> But if they choose to stop doing business in Pakistan, what would become of all of their existing customers?

What happens to Pakistani users of Debian, if Debian doesn't do business in Pakistan? Nothing. Those users are fine. iOS users would be in a bind only because Apple chose to create a system where users are left high-and-dry if/when Apple decides to no longer do business in any country.

A somewhat disingenuous argument. Debian isn’t physical hardware.

It's not selling physical hardware that binds Apple here; it's having an app store that requires the cooperation of national government to process payments. Pakistan could forbid Apple from opening Apple Stores in Pakistan, but Pakistanis would likely still be able to purchase apple products through resellers and/or black/graymarkets. And if iOS were not locked to Apple's authoritarian app store, oppressed ethnic minorities in Pakistan could distribute software through through their preexisting covert channels.

Both choices seem terrible to me: either stop serving swaths of users or take part in removing their freedom. If Apple and Google fostered a strong community of alternative app stores, they wouldn't have to make this choice at all.

Does one of those choices seriously not sound worse than the other?

It depends on how you measure "worse". I gather you're alluding to the moral argument, and I completely agree: Google leaving Pakistan is my gut reaction to this.

But public companies have shareholders that demand the company optimize for revenue, so I assume they are balancing that as well. This means they are weighing value systems against one another.

I was trying to highlight an opportunity to encourage other app stores to reconcile this tension to some degree. Allowing/encouraging other app stores will no doubt impact revenue to some degree, but perhaps not a great degree, since it mostly acts as an escape hatch in cases like this (convenience seems to dominate user behavior). But it would also allow Google/Apple to continue to serve users in Pakistan, some of whom might not agree with their government's position.

The subtext here is that I fundamentally disagree with the argument that users should be disallowed from installing apps of their choice from sources of their choice on devices they purchased. I know this is a fringe opinion, so I was eager to point out how it might help in this situation.

I understand. Apologies if I came off as confrontational. You make good points.

For one, not being able to use Google or Apple products would be such a hit to the modern way of life that people might become less complacent. To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in, but it makes sense that people would be more likely to stand up to tyranny when something very important to them is swiftly taken away. Even the simple act of taking a stance against these practices might inspire people to fight for their freedom.

Now, of course, all of these are small chances and all the ususl caveats of revolutions apply, but surely G&A continuing to do business there benefits nobody but themselves?

"To be very clear, I am not blaming the people in any way for the situation they are in"

Perhaps you should blame the people, if by the people you mean the Pakistani populace. I say this as a Pakistani. The issue of discrimination towards Ahmedis is something that has widespread support among the populace. From uneducated masses to university professors, poor to rich. Very few people actually oppose the discrimination towards Ahmedis.

And those who speak up to support Ahmedis have to be very careful. The issue with Ahmedis is always pretty closely linked to the issue with blasphemy and of protecting the "Prophet's honor" in Pakistan.

Many people have been killed over the blasphemy issue and even those who would say that blasphemy laws need to be revised were killed.

You can look up the murder of Salman Taseer, the chief minister of Punjab (one of Pakistan's 4 provinces, and the largest province by population). Taseer was killed by his own bodyguard for saying that blasphemy laws should be reviewed.

Honestly, I don't know the first thing about the situation over there, so I wanted to make sure it didn't sound like I was blaming the oppressed people for being opressed and not fighting for their freedom hard enough.

But if there are indeed large parts of the population that supoort this kind of oppression, then that might actually support the argument for not doing business with them. In that case, not only do you anger the victims to revolt, but also maybe force the oppressors to reconsider if oppressing whatever group of people is worth losing access to so much of modern technology over.

Of course, the possibility is that the oppressors just lash out and make things worse for the victims, or find other ways of hurting them, but despite that possibility, I'd still argue it's more moral for G&A to refuse their demands and leave the country if they have to.

Why are Pakistani people dismissive of arguments for support for Ahmedis? Sure, it might be ultimately their own making, but how much of that is the product of brainwashing by certain rival groups trying to gain power? It seems the people are just as much trapped in this, even if they don't realize. (Like the QAnon cultists in the US. And there's a very big political party in the US basically cheering them on for very-very-very short sighted goals.)

People ought to know better, people have the responsibility to better themselves, their thought patterns, their reasoning, refine their worldview ... but if their ability to do so is already thin, it's hard to blame people, since - it seems - they had very little power to act responsible.

The best analogy I could give you is the Mormons in the 1830s, or Jews for Jesus if the Orthodox Jews were in charge of enforcing penalties on the books for "epikoros"