Apple Removes WhatsApp, Threads and Telegram From China App Store (wsj.com) 53
China ordered Apple to remove some of the world's most popular chat messaging apps from its app store in the country, the latest example of censorship demands on the iPhone seller in the company's second-biggest market. WSJ: Meta's WhatsApp and Threads as well as messaging platforms Signal, Telegram and Line were taken off the Chinese App Store Friday [non-paywalled link]. Apple said it was told to remove certain apps because of national security concerns, without specifying which. "We are obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.
These messaging apps, which allow users to exchange messages and share files individually and in big groups, combined have more than three billion users globally. They can only be accessed in China through virtual private networks that take users outside China's Great Firewall, but are still commonly used. Beijing has often viewed such platforms with caution, concerned that these apps could be used by its citizens to spread negative content and organize demonstrations or social movements. Much of the news China censors at home often makes it beyond the Great Firewall through such channels.
These messaging apps, which allow users to exchange messages and share files individually and in big groups, combined have more than three billion users globally. They can only be accessed in China through virtual private networks that take users outside China's Great Firewall, but are still commonly used. Beijing has often viewed such platforms with caution, concerned that these apps could be used by its citizens to spread negative content and organize demonstrations or social movements. Much of the news China censors at home often makes it beyond the Great Firewall through such channels.
Sounds like the current censoring of TikTok (Score:1)
Nice to know we've devolved to be the equivalent of Communist China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like the current censoring of TikTok (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Apple has spent years building a tightly controlled walled garden and blocking any way for users to choose for themselves what software to run on their device. Only very recently (in the EU) have regulators started to push for greater openness. But of course, if Apple creates a locked-down device with total control, authoritarian governments will want to take that control for themselves -- and Apple, "obeying local laws" has no way to refuse those demands.
If your iPhone allowed you to download and install your own software, and not just as some special concession in certain markets but as the normal way it works, then it would be much harder for China or other countries to block particular apps.
And yes, there are certainly arguments in favour of a walled garden, for banking apps or for movie playback with DRM or for corporate paranoia about employee devices. And arguments against it too. It's not my intention to open a big discussion on those right now, just to note that Apple is getting a taste of its own medicine.
Re: (Score:3)
Alas, no. Apple's users in China are getting the ones having to taste the medicine.
Re: Sounds like the current censoring of TikTok (Score:2)
If you managed to install it in another way, and the authorities find out, I wouldnâ(TM)t want to be in your place.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that what the USG is voting on this Saturday is no different than China's policies. Apple doesn't get to control that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Remember when the US government banned exporting strong encryption, and PGP source code was printed as a book and exported, because first amendment?
Apple's behavior is inexcusable. It's well past time for them to enable normal software installation on iDevices.
Re: Sounds like the current censoring of TikTok (Score:2)
You make it sound like people are forced to use iPhones. People use them because they like them and want Apple in control of app sourcing. That control usually provides more security than it does censorship. Anyone negatively affected by censorship can choose a different device.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Asking that question means you don't understand the MIC and its propaganda arms in media, both old guard and social. Snowden made this as clear as he could in the past, but the more recent revelations by Taibbi and company of what was going on at Twitter should make it very clear the answer to your question is yes. Perhaps control is strong but they mostly accede to what is asked of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what? (Score:1)
I guess this would matter if I were in China and actually used any of these platforms.
Why is this news for anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
So....if you have a "different opinion", keep quiet. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe you can clarify why someone in say, Peru, needs to care about China's laws concerning app legality.
Please be sure to do so in a real and tangible way that actually matters to someone in Peru and their daily life, rather than in some theoretical, philosophical way.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't cheerlead for anyone. I think everybody sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this news for anyone else?
Mostly because we're witnessing a shift away from the ideals of a global internet. China bans our apps, we're possibly going to do the same, the EU is now telling American tech companies how to run their businesses, etc.
It used to be that you followed the laws of where your server was plugged in, and foreign users visiting your site was akin to them having taken a virtual "trip" to the hosting country. But lawmakers across the globe have begun to consider remote access to be tantamount to having a presenc
Re: (Score:2)
spokesweasel (Score:4, Interesting)
"We are obligated to follow the laws in the countries where we operate, even when we disagree," an Apple spokesperson said in a statement.
You're not obligated to operate in China, Apple spokesdroid. You chose to do so. Google chose to exit when China wanted them to help put the screws to the populace. Apple didn't. Apple is a willful contributor to public oppression in China and nothing any PR flack says will change that fact.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you suggest that rather than depriving a few users of 3 services, you deprive a few users of ALL services you offer along with your shareholders all your money?
I don't understand your argument here. Apple is a wilful contributor to obeying the law, nothing more, nothing less. We should all promote companies who obey the law, even if its laws we don't like in other places.
I bet you'd sing a different tune if the ban was for TikTok. Would you suggest Apple leave the USA because of one stupid app or one stu
Re: spokesweasel (Score:3, Insightful)
"Apple is a wilful contributor to obeying the law, nothing more, nothing less."
Apple is a corporation, and like all corporations its explicit legal purpose is to separate funding from liability.
"I bet you'd sing a different tune if the ban was for TikTok."
China already has banned TikTok from China. They only allow their own version with approved thoughts and ideas. This move by China (and supported by Apple because nothing is more important to them than profit, even if it is unsustainable) is in fact just m
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a corporation, and like all corporations its explicit legal purpose is to separate funding from liability.
Which is my point. We should actively be praising those who actually obey the law rather than skirt the law exposing themselves to liability. They had other approaches they could take. They didn't. You're just upset because today they are following a Chinese law.
China already has banned TikTok from China.
I am in awe. It takes some real skill to completely miss my point by that wide of a margin.
Re: spokesweasel (Score:2)
It took no skill, because you made no point. You just threw up and called it a meal.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have a separate TikTok app in China because the law requires it, or because Western nations would be even more unhappy if the networks weren't separated?
Probably a bit of both.
Re: spokesweasel (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The business case for Google vs Apple leaving China are vastly different:
1) Apple sells hardware which people pay big money for, abandoning their users is a bad look. Google's thing is internet search, which is useless when censored, and available anyways via proxy.
2) Removing a few apps is different than the highly detailed censorship and snooping that would be asked of Google.
3) There's tons of alternate search engines just a click away, Google could vanish near instantly if they are perceived as inferior
Re: spokesweasel (Score:2)
Google also sells expensive phones. It's just not their core business.
But that doesn't change the fact that Apple chose to stay and help the CCP oppress the P of the PRC, and Google didn't.
Your argument basically boils down to Apple's business model being more dependent on more corrupt regimes. That is not an endorsement.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, my argument is that both companies acted in their best interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM of the '30s approves this move (Score:1)
Apple has chosen money over ethics. They're not the only one but they are the big one.
Can I have prepping for war for 500, Alex? (Score:1)
Why else do you decide to cut off easy ways of communicating to the world?
Re: (Score:3)
Sinking cities (Score:3)
The PRC must not want citizens spreading the word that their cities are sinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels are rising. Technically all cities are sinking ;-)
No backdoor? (Score:3)
If China wants these removed then that means there's no backdoor they have access to. I was always a bit suspicious of Telegram because Russia gave up on its attempts to ban it.
I'm surprised Threads and WhatsApp were still allowed given that Facebook was banned in about 2009 in China.
Tim Cook is China's lapdog (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)