Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses IOS Privacy Apple

Apple Commits To Freedom of Speech After Criticism of China Censorship (ft.com) 44

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Apple has for the first time published a human rights policy that commits to respecting "freedom of information and expression," following years of criticism that it bows to demands from Beijing and carries out censorship in mainland China, Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong. From a report: Apple's board of directors approved the policy and quietly published it ahead of a deadline of September 5 for shareholders to submit motions for next year's investor meeting. The four-page document [PDF], cited here for the first time, tries to walk a fine line between upholding human rights while conceding that Apple is "required to comply with local laws" in authoritarian countries. The document said Apple is "committed to respecting the human rights of everyone whose lives we touch -- including our employees, suppliers, contractors and customers." Its approach is based on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. But it does not mention any particular country, nor does it refer to high-profile dilemmas like what to do when China, the world's largest smartphone market, asks it to ban apps that help users evade censorship and surveillance. The Apple policy merely states: "Where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard. Where they are in conflict, we respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights." Further reading: Apple Has No Backbone.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Commits To Freedom of Speech After Criticism of China Censorship More

Apple Commits To Freedom of Speech After Criticism of China Censorship

Comments Filter:

  • LOL Freedom of speech, put up or shut up.

    Censorist assholes.

    • At first I thought he was playing a character that simply got out of hand and he was afraid to break because of his fan base. Then he continued to be crazy in front of a judge. So he's either that dedicated or actually crazy. I miss the days of harmless conspiracy folks like Art Bell.

      • His own legal teams have explained heâ(TM)s a performance artist: (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-playing-character-lawyer-conspiracy-theory-donald-trump-a7687571.html).... There are also a few interviews with him explaining some of this when questioned about his successes in the entertainment business. Heâ(TM)s very careful to tow the line in such a way where itâ(TM)s plausibly deniable on his front. He can say he âoejust said thatâ so
      • The problem with this is "Human Rights" are subjective. One group may find for example the "right to life" to be unquestionable, while the other may find euthanasia to be a human right, or access to abortion. Some people may find freedom of speech trumps living in peace and tranquility, yet in China, their system prioritizes "domestic harmony" over freedoms of expression.

        I personally feel that Apple, or any other organization should be able to conduct their business in the manner that best fits with their

  • international v local (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbjbaanb ( 229885 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @10:04AM (#60472924)

    "Where national law and international human rights standards differ"

    good luck with that - the only places where national law overrides international laws, is just before activists cause them to be changed to comply with international ones. If any local laws like that exist anywhere in the world.

    And if they mean "standards" ie not laws, then good luck with that, local laws override any handwringing wishes that are not law.

    So I think this is more Apple saying "we're the good guys, really, no honestly, please believe us", whilst continuing to do exactly what they currently do.

  • We should have revised the story about free speech, it is an unreality. What we really mean to say is freedom of expression of opinion. You are most definitely not free to express false facts, not in contract law and not in common law. You are not free to pay someone to kill someone else, an act of speech by law in the USA money is speach. You are also not entitled to actively incite crime. Extortion can also be considered an illegal crime of expression. You are also not free to express secrets you have agr

    • The line between facts and opinions is defined by perception. Perception can be shaped.
      For example, it used to be a commonly held "fact" that free trade increases GDP. This fact is true in the narrowest (a d best) sense that data exists to back it up. The opinion of whether GDP increase by way of free trade is good for the country, however, is deliberately conflated with the fact that free trade increases GDP. Disentangling that conflation will pit you against a fact until you communicate your nuance. And a

      • no, facts are not malleable and neither are they opinions.

        A fact asserts a truthiness/falsiness about something that can be physically proven.

        It might be correct or incorrect, but it is "statement of fact". A statement of opinion has no way of proving or disproving it.

        Then, there's imperative, interrogative, interjections...

        Go back to grammar school already. Didn't they teach this shit to you? The Department of Defense Schools did.

        • Two separate facts on the surface can appear contradictory, rather than complimentary though, which is why the way they are stated makes them appear malleable.
        • Perception is key. If I perceive an opinion as a fact, there is no way for you to get me to change my mind without first getting me to agree that what I thought was a fact wasn't. The great tragedy of our time (all time?) is that people who (believe they) are arguing from a position of fact discount the possibility that they are being perceived as arguing from a position of opinion, and that people who are in fact arguing from a position of opinion perceive themselves to be arguing from a position of fact.

    • Truth used to be an absolute defense in the US, but they've poked so many "policy" holes in it, ignoring the Constitution entirely.

  • ... using Fortnite.

  • If you think there's a chinaboy defending the 21st century nazi regime in the comments, ask him to recite the events of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

  • Anyone who understands how big corporations work knows this is total bullshit. Simply put, money comes first. They will do anything for a buck and don't give a shit about people's freedoms or rights. Hell, they would gladly violate human rights if they could save a buck and without anyone finding out.

    Just more PR bullshit for the gullible to feast on.

    • In this particular case, this stance by Apple comes from pressure from shareholders themselves.

      So maybe money comes first, but in this case, it looks like the shareholders believe that there's money to be made by upholding human rights.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by v1 ( 525388 )

        exactly. Apple is trying to strike a balance between doing what obviously makes the most money (doing whatever the group controlling a market demands of them) and not doing things in one market that piss off customers in other markets as a result.

        Unfortunately, China makes a lot of demands AND is a very big market, so this puts Apple in a tough position. Bow to demands in China and lose sales in freer markets, or get kicked OUT of China and gain sales in freer markets. I don't think it should surprise a

    • Interesting that you think private business is more of a problem here because they are carrying out government laws.

      Because to me that sounds more like government abuse.

      • Both are a problem. Apple could refuse to take part in nations that violate human rights but they prefer to get money instead.

  • Nothing's Changed... (Score:3)

    by ddtmm ( 549094 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @10:46AM (#60473098)

    "Where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard. Where they are in conflict, we respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights."

    Sound pretty clear to me they will side with governments. "Where they are in conflict, we respect national law..."

    • Re:Nothing's Changed... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by organgtool ( 966989 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @01:59PM (#60473946)
      You weren't supposed to actually read it - you were supposed to see a headline and get the warm and fuzzies that Apple cares about human rights.

      Apple, it's no longer 2010. The Reality Distortion Field has weakened since then and your fanbase isn't quite as rabid. Releasing a PR document that has no teeth and isn't accompanied by any action means nothing and very few people will see it for anything other than a publicity stunt. If anything, the Streisand Effect will cause more people to scrutinize your business tactics in certain countries at a time when you're already under increasing scrutiny for the practices of your App Store. You were better off saying nothing but your PR team just had to attempt to justify their jobs.
  • Because isn't hypocrisy fun.

  • This isn't about free speach....This is PR (Score:3)

    by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @11:06AM (#60473166)

    I read the document Apple produced and it's not about free speech.. They play lip service to Human Rights of course, but they make no commitments or express no specific policy they are committed to follow.

    All this really is, is a politically correctness driven public relations move. All it says is what Apple's goals are, not what they are actually doing, nor is it specific on the policies they will use to decide what is a non-negotiable human right and where they will follow local laws that violate that determination. This is nothing but double talk, designed to sound good to many, but actually commits Apple to no specific action or policy. It's 100% politically correctness, zero commitment.

    The problem here is that none of what Apple discusses is "free speech" but quite the opposite. Being committed to free speech means you are committed to allow others to share opinions that you categorically disagree with or find offensive. You are committed to protecting the right of others to SAY anything, no matter how repugnant you find the content. Apple makes no such commitment, quite the opposite, they are clearly limiting what they will allow to be expressed, and as such, are NOT supporting freedom of expression, unless of course it happens to agree with their list of causes.

  • Only one sentence matters. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @11:15AM (#60473212)

    "We respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights."

    Everything else they do or could say is undermined by that one sentence. It could be expressed more cynically as "We support human rights in the abstract, but not to the point of making enemies of any oppressive governments which could cut off a market we want to sell to. If China's domestic laws say to hand over everything we have on some dissidents, or Iran wants us to identify some heretics for arrest and execution, we will respect their national law."

    • Bingo. Anyone reading this as a strong commitment to freedom is failing to parse the corporate speak correctly. This is quite clearly a statement intended to appease everyone by assuring people that they care about everyone's (contradictory) interests, with deference being given to local interests.

      Frankly, this is about the best they can do and best we can realistically hope for until they extricate themselves from China, which they seem to be doing hurriedly, with new factories and suppliers rapidly rampin

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      If they were serious they would pull out of China. Google isn't in China because it refuses to censor its products to the Chinese government's liking, so gets blocked. Apple is happy to do so because it is their biggest growth market. Microsoft is also happen to take that money, BTW.

      The only serious move is to remove the Chinese mandated filters and let themselves get blocked.

      • The only serious move is to remove the Chinese mandated filters and let themselves get blocked.

        This would violate the rights of Apple shareholders, the most important people of all.

      • If they were serious they would pull out of China.

        But they ARE serious, that's why they're staying in China.

        What else did you think they were serious about?

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 04, 2020 @12:16PM (#60473482)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Get ready to drop your pants or just don't do business in that country. Simple as that.

  • You stuck half a trillion cash in the bank by manufacturing with slaves in the most carbon-polluting economy in the world. There's no do-over on that, you are who you are.

    • Lead free solder, mercury free batteries, PVC free devices! The pool of manufacturing by-product chemicals back there? Please ignore that, I said ***LEAD FREE SOLDER***!

  • This is what they're really saying:

    We're all for "Human Rights" as a slogan and as long as it does not cause us any "lost opportunity dollars". Mostly we just censor whoever and whatever we need to, and cooperate as much as required by the local government in order to make as much cash as we can, oh - and we reserve the right to censor anybody we like in the western world and use "human rights" as the phony justification. When consistency or principle clash with the cash in a totalitarian place the cash is

  • From the summary: "Where they are in conflict, we respect national law while seeking to respect the principles of internationally recognised human rights"

    So, they will follow the law of the countries law. So if the law of the country is to "insert active microphone and camera into ass of every user" Apple will dutifully comply.

    How is this any different?

  • required to comply with local laws = not FBI when they ask for phone unlock now when China asks for the same do they help?

  • "Where national law and international human rights standards differ, we follow the higher standard. Where they are in conflict, we respect cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck."

    More moronic crap from the brain dead "useful idiots" for hire. A 5 dollar crack whore deserves to be held in higher regard than the clowns who wrote and spewed this

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.

Close