Apple Censors Dalai Lama iPhone Apps In China

eldavojohn writes "Google and Yahoo! have relinquished any sort of ethical integrity with regards to free speech in China but Apple appears to be following suit by blocking Dalai Lama applications in the Chinese iPhone app store. An official Apple statement reads, 'We continue to comply with local laws. Not all apps are available in every country.' A small monetary price to pay for the economic boon that is the blooming Chinese cell phone market but a very large price to pay for that in principles."

Comments

The Chinese don't care about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

They care about their rights to make money.

I mean seriously, do you REALLY think it would be easy to oppress 1.299 BILLION angry people with 1 million armed soldiers if the majority gave a shit? Yeah, me neither.

The Chinese don't give a shit about freedom of speech et al, so long as they're free to make money. Ask any of them about freedom of speech (outside of MAYBE a few really liberal by Chinese standards journalists), and they'll bluntly tell you they don't give a shit. They want to make MONEY, and that's it.

So long as the Chinese people don't give a shit about freedom of speech, there's no point in caring about it for them. As much as I'd like to help them, they're the only ones that can do anything about it. And they won't any time soon. Let's worry about our own freedoms instead, so that one day when they DO care we're available to help if they happen to need it.

Re:The Chinese don't care about freedom

[Runaway1956]

Sounds a lot like the West, really. Seat belt law? No one gives a damn - they comply with the government as long as it gets them to work. Smoking laws? Again - do what you want, it doesn't affect me. Tax laws? Greedy bastids want more money, fine - just give me a raise so it doesn't hurt my bottom line. Censorship? Think of the children, censor what you wish. In fact - the government can do anything it damned well wishes, as long as it doesn't involve the draft, and allows me to make money.

Every single year, we see more and more laws passed. Strip searches at the airport? Well - I don't want to take my dress off, officer, but if it will get me on the plane, I'll do it for you!

Unless, of course, the TSA employees decide to just take half a day off, like at Dallas Fort Worth. Then, no one gets to peek under the dresses.

But - we are SUPERIOR, LMAO

Re:The Chinese don't care about freedom

[sydneyfong]

It wasn't that long ago when China was really an underdeveloped country, with the majority of the population without sufficient daily necessities such as food and shelter. Talk to them about freedoms and of course that will on deaf ears.

Today a sizable part of China is prosperous almost on par with the first world. It wouldn't be long until these people demand more freedoms and rights.

What I think the Chinese government is really concerned though, is not about its citizens having more freedoms and rights. Rather, it is the eagerness of the west to "help" the "revolution".

Honestly, we've all seen what happens when the righteous Uncle Sam and the west "liberates" a country. Iraq? Afghanistan? If you read up Chinese 19-20th century history, you'll realize that a lot of invasions were under various "nice" pretexts, notably the "Greater Asia" slogan used by the Japanese to "rid Asia of colonial powers".

I'm sure you don't have these ulterior motives, but please face the fact: your "help" to other countries "for their own good", is much more likely to make it a hellhole than achieving something positive.

Re:The Chinese don't care about freedom

[ElectricTurtle]

Statistically I'd say that US involvement is more likely to be positive than negative. Enumerated:

Mexican-American War: Substantially positive effects on acquired territory.
Spanish-American War: Substantially positive effects for Puerto Rico and Guam, less so but still positive for the Philippines... Cuba not so much, the degree of which depending on whether you want to blame the revolution on the US.
World War II: Positive effects for numerous occupied territories, Japan, Germany, former Japanese Pacific island mandates too numerous/small to list...
Korean War: Substantially positive effects on South Korea
Vietnam War: Negative effects, but to be fair, what happened in post-war Vietnam is what the Vietnamese did to themselves, we lost the war and had no further direct impact on Vietnam's development. (And if we hadn't been involved at all, the South just would have lost more quickly and the same things/conditions would have happened faster.)
Grenada: Positive effects
Panama: Probably barely net positive, but hard to say considering how little Panama has advanced and how much collateral damage was done.
Kuwait: Substantially positive effects
Somalia: The place was so messed up when we started there I don't think it was substantially more messed up when we left, and just like Vietnam the Somalis themselves must shoulder the responsibility for their condition after our withdrawal.
Balkans: Net positive effects
Afghanistan: Net positive effects, primarily because the country was practically starting from zero.
Iraq: Substantially positive effects in the north, substantially negative effects in the south. It's too bad Turkey is such a bitch about Kurds, otherwise it would make a lot of sense to just split Iraq and salvage what's working.

So there you are, even if we assume that what countries do to themselves after we leave is our fault, that's still round about an 80% rate of positive effects to places we have occupied.

Re:The Chinese don't care about freedom

[__aapspi39]

Obviously you're not aware that the British brutally controlled the whole of india for a long long time, and with less than 20,000 soldiers. that's a country of close to a billion people controlled by 20,000.

one question for you, do you think that by apple making money from helping to take away the human rights of people then they are strengthening "our own freedoms" as you put it, and thus, down the line giving us more of chance of helping them should they decide they do want to be free? how far would you go with this? just how flexible is your moral compass?

also, your point of view is pretty convenient for big business isn't it - would it surprise you to know that your belief is an echo of one put forward by Rupert Murdoch a few years back...? someone who clearly believes that the needs of big business are more far important than freedom or democracy.

Re:The Chinese don't care about freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

You've conveniently omitted all the South American countries where the CIA tipped over dozens of governments for being "too leftist", enabling the rise of vicious military dictators. Ditto for big chunks of Africa, and parts of the middle east (hint: the Shah, dumbass).

Your "analysis" of Vietnam also omits that we had the opportunity to solve that problem 30 years before the war, but didn't because Wilson was a racist bastard.

Principals?

[Fnord666]

...Chinese cell phone market but a very large price to pay for that in principals.

Maybe they should pay in superintendents then, or did you mean principles?

Read as...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not profitable anyway as no one will buy this app.
Buying this app is like bying a ticket to jail...

A new low?

[erroneus]

China: You no make this app available or we no make no more cheap iPhone for you! You can make iPhone somewhere else!
Apple: Okay... I'll do whatever you ask.

Re:A new low?

[SpeedyDX]

Hilarious! What a great rendition of the broken English of all Chinese people! Especially those who often deal with foreign, mainly English-speaking businesses. Not a racist comment at all! Completely appropriate AND necessary for the point you're trying to make.

Oh, sorry, I must have forgotten that I'm Chinese for a moment.

Me love your post long time!

Re:A new low?

[StikyPad]

How many times do we have to go through this nonsense?

Pick your battles. Isolationism, the result of failing to abide by foreign laws, is a losing strategy, so it would be foolish for US corporations not to compromise. In exchange for compliance with the law -- law that won't change as a result of failure to comply on the part of foreign corporations -- we have the presence of US companies, services, and products in China, which is beneficial both economically and (in the long run) socially and politically.

Or do you turn down a paycheck every time you feel a superior didn't respect your values enough?

That's what I thought...

Re:A new low?

[SpeedyDX]

Overreacting? I merely pointed out that his racial denigration of Chinese people was completely unnecessary for the point he was trying to make. For a relatively liberal, left-leaning community that embraces the concept of open contribution to society, /. seems generally pretty intolerant when racial minorities point out posts that are unnecessarily racist. We are labeled trolls or whiners or, as you say, someone who overreacts. However, is this not exactly the type of unfair treatment that a considerable section of the /. population professes against?

People who share music or exchange whatever form of information or entertainment they wish are labeled pirates, thieves, crooks in the media or by corporations. This is a malicious misrepresentation of a minority (a sizable minority, but a minority nonetheless) group of people. But when racial minorities complain of the same malicious misrepresentation, we are posting flamebait? We are being too sensitive? We should "man up", as it were?

Just because this "Chinglish" concept exists, and may indeed be prolific amongst lay Chinese who do not have access to quality education, it's okay to make fun of it? Would it be okay if I generalized all Blacks as gangsters or muggers since violence is relatively prevalent in Afro-American communities with low socio-economic standing?

I remember reading a post on /. that said that we are letting the corporations dictate the game when we allow them to label us as pirates. When we openly embrace such a derogatory label. So no. I will not let insensitive, racist clods dictate the game in /. conversation by allowing them to throw in racial insults willy-nilly.

Besides, I was under the impression that /. is a place where people should feel comfortable reading, commenting, and otherwise participating in the community. Allowing such casual racial insults and then categorizing people who are genuinely offended by this type of behaviour as somehow weak or, more vulgarly, as pussies does no service to that end. I am not some bleeding heart liberal who is attacking certain types of speech for the sake of whatever conception of racism is out there. I am a Chinese person, offended by a Chinese slur. Just because I can take it doesn't mean I should stay silent and allow such hostile behaviour to proliferate in a supposedly open and welcoming community.

Re:A new low?

[SpeedyDX]

I hate to double post, but I would just like to illustrate my point more vividly.

There's a difference between an acknowledgement of sociological fact and racism. For example, I can say that there is a higher rate of reported offences and convictions amongst the Black population without being racist. That does not entail that I can say that many Afro-Americans are gangsters and should be locked up.

Likewise, you can criticize the policies and practices of the Chinese government. But that does not entail that you can start throwing around Chinglish as a cheap laugh against Chinese people.

He could easily have made his point without using Chinglish, but he chose to throw that insult against Chinese people, whether intentionally or unintentionally. In my opinion, it's even worse if he did it unintentionally - if racist insults are trivialized to the point where a cheap laugh at the expense of an entire race is considered insightful and someone who raises a voice in protest against such a racial insults is considered a troll, then we have reached a point where racial minorities are oppressed on /. in a way that is socially harmful for the community as a whole.

Re:A new low?

[Runaway1956]

More people should grow up in multicultural neighborhoods. You learn ALL the denigrating slur, realize they are funny, then you begin to realize that none of them apply all the time, but they all apply equally to all ethnic groups.

Got a good Polish joke? Go ahead, pick your favorite. Tell it to 100 people - but for each person, substitute the ethnic term. First, use "Redneck", then "Hillbilly", then "Russian", "English", "French", "Catholic", "Chinese" - etc ad nauseum. Almost all of the people you tell the very same joke to will think it was just as funny as it was when it was a Polish joke.

You may also note that the people who actually take offense at the joke recognize that there is an uncomfortable truth in there. For instance, almost all Americans CAN recognize a first generation immigrant by speech alone. They talk funny. 2nd generation? Maybe. 3rd generation? Not likely.

Could it be that you're just embarrassed by your family's failure to completely blend in after a generation or two? Don't worry - your kids will blend in just fine.

Re:A new low?

[sydneyfong]

Calm down brother. I guess you live in a place where you're an ethnic minority, so I can't claim to totally understand how you feel. I'm Chinese too, and I didn't feel too much offended by the OP's post. It definitely wasn't pleasant, but not to the extent I'd be ranting on racism and stuff.

There is a time to tolerate cheap jokes and jabs, particularly when they don't really mean much beyond the verbal assault. Did you react to the "In Soviet Russia" jokes that used to be so common around here? Or the short lived "in Korea only old people..." meme?

Of course, as I've mentioned I don't live in a place where Chinese is an ethnic minority, so I'm less prone to being agitated by these kind of cheap jokes. But sometimes overreaction (in the eyes of onlookers) has negative effects. Choose your fights wisely.

Re:A new low?

[SpeedyDX]

I grew up in Toronto, one of the most multicultural cities in the world. We have reached a point where over 50% of the population is comprised of visible minorities. So yeah, I might know a thing or two about growing up in a multicultural environment.

Are those really your arguments for allowing such racially charged comments? That I should suck it up, or that I can't blend in to society? That I'm immature or insecure or embarassed if I can't find such insults funny? Ad hominems abound, but not a single good argument for allowing such racial insults. Let me give you an(other) argument against racial insults that doesn't rely on blatantly precarious logic. Allow me to provide a first-hand account of a minority reader on /..

I am not a frequent contributer to /. discussions, and there are plenty of reasons why that is so. The first is that my primary expertise lies in philosophy and somewhat less so in other disciplines of the humanities, but not particularly in technology. As such, I tend to take a back seat and reap the collective wisdom of the more tech-savvy masses on /.. However, where my expertise does come into play (rarely as it may), my input does tend to stimulate conversation or serve to inform others on relevant issues. I have a background in Philosophy which allows me to contribute to discussions like think-typing (where I link to ideas of Embedded Cognition and Enactivism that are highly relevant in AI research and other "do with just thinking" technologies), the possible problem of over-reductionism in the disciplines generally termed "hard sciences", and whether it is ethical to summarize research in certain areas of study in a biased manner. My background in Criminology allows me to comment on certain legal issues like whether a warrant system is necessary or effective.

At any rate, I feel like I can and do contribute meaningful content to /. discussions. However, there are many more times where I feel I can contribute, but the ambience in those particular discussions are too stifling for me to contribute. This current thread is a prime example of a stifling social environment. There cannot be free and open social discourse in an oppressive environment. This is clear when the state acts as the oppressor (a completely valid criticism against the Chinese government, I might add). This is, however, less clear when society acts as the oppressor.

If the state says that I am free to practice Islam, for example, but whenever I go and pray in a public space (inevitable since there are specific times that prayer is required in Islam), I receive bouts of verbal harassments, can it truly be said that I am free to practice Islam? If I fear that whenever I practice my religious practices, I will be the subject of verbal abuses, am I really free to do so? This is not fear of prosecution - for I will not be prosecuted by the state - but it is a fear of social ostracization. If everywhere there are people hurling insults at Muslims for a cheap laugh, does that not contribute to the social oppression of a Muslim? If I need to, as you say, blend in, presumably by somehow altering my religious practices, could I still be said to be free to practice my religion? The answer that the state allows free religious practice completely misses the point. Whether it is the state doing the oppressing or society doing the oppressing, SOMEONE is being oppressed.

In the case of this story, we have one person who openly generalizes the Chinese people via the actions of their government (would it be fair to say that all Americans were war-hungry when Bush and Cheney were in power?). We have other people who mock the Chinese, and we have still others who tell the person who has a problem with that mocking that they are somehow a weaker human being (in that they are lacking a sense of security or maturity or a sense of humour). When I stand up for myself and m

Re:A new low?

[Runaway1956]

One correction. I made no mention of "cultural homogeneity". That term is not synonymous with "blending in". Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, and any number of other Christian faiths "blend in" flawlessly in America. Moslems tend to stand out right now, thanks to the actions of some of their overseas brethren, along with a few domestic misfits. Wiccans, Native Americans, and others blend in to the mix, without being homogenous with the more mainstream Christian faiths.

My whole point was similar to another post, made by a member who says that he is also Chinese. Lighten up, and laugh at yourself. Psychology isn't THAT serious a course of study. Hell, LIFE isn't all that serious. It's just temporary after all. You might as well laugh at yourself - and when you get over it, you can then laugh at all the other assholes who aren't all that different.

The original post was good for a mild chuckle. The fact that 33% of the (self identified) Chinese people who post on slashdot took offense at the post doesn't detract from the little bit of humor. Keep in mind that 75% of females would take offense at locker room humor - but 90% of all men still laugh at it. The fact that my wife doesn't think a joke is funny doesn't dictate whether I think it's funny.

Oppressed, are you? Not at all. You voiced an opinion, some people opined back at you, you furthered your opinion - and I've not seen one person's post defining you as some kind of subhuman, yellow skinned, whatever. And, if someone DOES put you down as subhuman, then you can just shake your head, and write them off as an ignorant barbarian or whatever blows your skirt up.

Meanwhile - why don't YOU post about what Joe Sixpack and his family in China find humorous about our Western culture. Americans especially probably mangle your language all to hell and back, if and when they bother to learn it at all. Go for it - tell us how stupid WE sound! You won't hear me whining. In fact, you might learn something from the responses that are posted.

Re:A new low?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Likewise, you can criticize the policies and practices of the Chinese government. But that does not entail that you can start throwing around Chinglish as a cheap laugh against Chinese people.

The GPs use of broken English of many Chinese businessmen is not some kind of racist insult. If anything it's an insightful observation of the relationship between western businesses and China. The trading partnership between the US and China is unparalleled in scope though all of history, yet the cultural and social distance between most Chinese and Americans remains enormous. Each side can only rattle out enough broken language in the others tongue in order to close the (often shady) deal and beyond that ne'er the two sides shall meet.

Most foreign business in China could be conducted by a computer, or by mime using grunts and pointing; that's how little exchanging of ideas is going on. So much for the power of commerce.

Re:A new low?

[QuantumRiff]

Me love your post long time!

Why are you dragging the Vietnamese into this conversation? :)

that's a play on a quote from Full Metal Jacket, a Movie (some would say 2 movies in one) about the Vietnam War..

Re:A new low?

[betterunixthanunix]

"we have the presence of US companies, services, and products in China, which is beneficial both economically and (in the long run) socially and politically."

Beneficial socially and politically? Funny, the presence of US corporations has not done much for the citizens of Saudi Arabia, who continue to be persecuted by their government. What reason is there to think that the Chinese will magically see better lives just because US corporations happen to operate in China? Particularly since those corporations are doing absolutely nothing to buck the censorship or monitoring efforts.

Sure, the Chinese economy has grown very rapidly in recent years, but do not confuse "high GDP" or "more corporations" with "better lives for the people."

Re:A new low?

[riggah]

So to answer your final question: no, I am not embarrassed that my family cannot blend in. Sorry, I am proud that my family WILL NOT blend in. We are solidly middle class, if not upper middle. I am well educated, attending one of the most prestigious post-secondary institutions in the world, studying under some of the leading minds in my chosen fields. We are Canadian, but we are also Chinese. We have our cultural differences. We have different practices. If the point is to blend in, then it takes away the significance of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is good PRECISELY BECAUSE we are all allowed to act differently and NOT to blend in and fully adopt all western practices. If we were required to blend in or risk social ostracization, then there is no point in multiculturalism. People practicing cultures different from the mainstream would be socially ostracized. I am happy that we will not blend in, and that we are different, and that we do not face popular oppression in Toronto.

Nor should you be embarrassed by "being different." There's no reason at all for you to completely blend in, or "hide" among the masses. In fact, as much as people claim, it is almost impossible to "blend in" to a point where no one will see a difference.
You're Chinese. I'm Puerto Rican. I may think that I "look like everyone else" (read: caucasian), but I am not, and people can see that just by looking at my skin tone. My girlfriend is Jewish (ancestry is Polish) and she calls me a spic. I call her a kike. She makes "latino jokes." I make Pollock and Jewish jokes. We laugh. Because as much as we pretend that we are all the same, we are not, and stereotypes exist. Stereotypes exist.

I'm getting away from my point, which is: when you set yourself apart, when you are proud of your differences, when you're proud to "NOT blend in" you also have to be ready for others to point out that you're different. You have to grow a little bit of a thicker skin if you set yourself apart from your peers or community. There is no choice.

It has nothing to do with race, but as a young man (in the early 90's) I pierced myself up. My hair was ridiculous colors. I dressed in outlandish ways. Of course, I've grown up since then, but I spent most of my teenage years and my 20's TRYING to look different.

It accomplished 2 things: one, it attracted the attention of people who were either like me (dressing the same, etc) or wanted to be like me. Great. The second thing it accomplished was that I was different, very different at the time; this was the early 90's... body modification and "being a freak" hadn't become as popular as it is now and getting your tongue pierced wasn't as common or as "cool" as getting your ear pierced in the 80's. I received the attention that I wanted and TONS of attention that I didn't want in terms of derogatory comments, ladies clutching their handbags, people outright asking what was wrong with me for "messing up my body" and asking why I didn't want to "be like everyone else." I was called freak.

Point being: although CHOOSING to be different is not the same as being born a minor ethnicity in a majority, you have chosen to hold on to what you think is your cultural identity. It's your choice. If, occasionally, someone hurls some Chingrish at you for a laugh, you need to learn to deal with it. Just as I CHOSE not to be like my peers, and received negative attitudes toward it, it was my choice, I dealt with it, and I grew a thicker skin because of it. I also think I'm a better person and more tolerant of others because of it.

Don't even get me started on the thinly veiled racism I receive when someone thinks I'm caucasian and they find out that I am Puerto Rican. Or the typically horrible "chicano accent" people try to affect at times, or the mistake of thinking "puerto ricans and mexicans are 'the same thing'"
It happens all the time. I pick my battles and most of the time, they aren't worth fighting.

I wonder how many people on /. w

Think Different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess that ruins that campaign then.

Re:Think Different?

[node 3]

Guess that ruins that campaign then.

Not really. In America (and other places, I'm sure) we're still allowed, by the government[*], to Think Different. But in China, the government (not Apple) outlaws thinking different.

[*] Well, for the most part.

Freedom!

[kurt555gs]

Some here have commented about my enthusiasm of the Nokia N900, and this would be a perfect example. With Maemo5 as the OS, NO ONE but you decides what or how you will operate this device.

TO me, this in it's self means an awful lot!

Re:Freedom!

[agrif]

I agree with you, in that freedom to do what you will with what you own should be a right.

This is why I, and many others, jailbreak my iPhone. Unix shell and root privileges? Why, thank you, iPwn!

Yes, it would be a much nicer world if Apple let us have more freedom from the start, but it's Apple's right, I guess, to do what they want with the product they make. I take it as a good gesture, though, that Apple is not actively discouraging jailbreaking. Now, unlocking, on the other hand...

I see it as the same as the content locks on the Xbox 360, or the Wii. They'll only play approved content, before you hack them open. Which I do, and love. But you never hear of people whining that the Wii won't let you run arbitrary content. Is the iPhone very much different?

Re:Freedom!

[Mr2001]

I take it as a good gesture, though, that Apple is not actively discouraging jailbreaking. Now, unlocking, on the other hand...

"Apple has filed comments to the 2009 DMCA triennial rulemaking committee complaining about jailbreaking and asking that it be deemed illegal."

Not active enough for you?

How there they...

[Tharsman]

How dare Apple even consider obeying local laws!? What next? Underage sex censorship just because most countries dislike it? What about freedom?!!

Sarcasm aside, what do you expect? Apple has to obey the country laws. Free speech is not a right in China, no matter how much we think everyone should have it, it just isn't. It's like Britain and Canada insulting the US for not offering it's people the right of socialized medicine.

Re:How there they...

[shutdown -p now]

Sarcasm aside, what do you expect? Apple has to obey the country laws.

Apple doesn't have to operate in China. If it doesn't do so, it doesn't have to obey the laws that are clearly immoral (by our standards).

Of course, this is rather moot anyway so long as China remains the #1 manufacturer fueling the consumerist society in the West. You can't in good faith buy Chinese-made goods in Walmart, and then complain that Apple (or Google, or whoever) wants to be a part of Chinese market, too.

Oh FFS Slashdot

[GF678]

but a very large price to pay for that in principals

This is not how businesses work. You either comply with the laws of a country or you don't get to do business. It's not the modus operandi of corporations to fight for principals.

Do people writing these summaries not understand how the real world works?

These are not American companies

[DreamsAreOkToo]

I keep telling people that these "American Companies" aren't American at all. Fewer and fewer of their worker's are American, their ideals are not American and their tax revenue isn't reported in America.

As a people, we need to take back America

Re:These are not American companies

[tpgp]

I keep telling people that these "American Companies" aren't American at all. Fewer and fewer of their worker's are American, their ideals are not American and their tax revenue isn't reported in America.

I think that you'll find that a large chunk of the profits go to Americans.

Re:These are not American companies

[tpgp]

Go ahead and tell me it's not China's fault for producing substandard products and that I, as an America, am profiting in some way from it.

Quality toaster ovens are available for you to buy (manufactured all over the world).

Yet you choose to buy the cheaper, inferior products.

Not just China..

[GrBear]

Guess what, Apple doesn't allow Canadians to purchase certain apps, movies and albums either.

It's called different laws for different markets.

Re:Not just China..

[Tangentc]

To be fair, those are most likely due to copyright and license concerns, and not censorship, so it's not really the same.

Still, I don't think this is terribly surprising and I fail to see why people are shocked. China is a HUGE market, especially in technology. Any profit seeking entity has a lot to gain there, and would be extremely irresponsible to their shareholders if they weren't to do whatever they had to to get into the market.

I don't mean to say I approve of censorship, I'm just saying that it isn't surprising.

Re:Not just China..

[aussie_a]

It is business as usual. But the moment people start accepting reality is the moment we all give up. After all, what if people hadn't cared that your taxes went to some foreign king across the ocean that none of you would probably never see. What if they had said "such is life" and simply moved on with their lives? You'd still be part of the British Empire, or perhaps worse, part of some other country's empire that overthrew Britain in a world-spanning war.

The moment you go "eh, not surprising" is the moment the oppressors win.

Seriously, Who Really Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I don't think any of you truly care. I know I don't. Apple is just a corporation, it can, for better or for worse, sell what it likes, when it likes, where it likes, as long as it doesn't break any laws doing so. Even if it does, there's not much that could happen to it, other than a small fine.

If any of you are so enraged, stop buying Apple products (easy enough for you GNU/Linux, "my kernel don't taint" bigots), and go and protest against this in whatever way you see fit. Please, if you have a shred of sincerity, you will.

I'd personally be much more concerned about who supplies the equipment for China's great firewall, of if a nation builds a Linux supercomputer/cluster to hack/analyze/accumulate sensitive data on its population, or to test nuclear bomb designs (it's better than building them, but it's still an evil use of technology, IMO).

Besides, is any information really free of censorship? Most news in the U.S. is driven by advertising dollars and ratings potential. Your news is filtered more than your bottled water.

Cross another one off the list

[rastoboy29]

I've never given Google or Yahoo a free pass on this issue, and I don't plan on buying AAPL stock any more, either.

I'm not willing to make money from asshole behavior, at least knowingly.

I believe it is against the *long term* interests of these companies to knuckle under to this sort of thing.  Simply don't operate in China.  Or do Sergei and Steve not have enough billions?  Bah.

Re:Cross another one off the list

[tangent3]

Mod parent +1, Naive

Re:Cross another one off the list

[harlows_monkeys]

Do you also refuse to buy any product made in China?

Re:Cross another one off the list

[Bartab]

I approve of your choice to sell Apple, Google, Yahoo and other stocks that operate profitably. Your, and others of similar stances, choice to sell depresses the market price of the stock allowing people like me to buy it undervalued.

Thank you, and please keep purchasing those iPhones.

Re:Cross another one off the list

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Do you also refuse to buy any product made in China?

If the manufacturer is known to violate basic human rights, then yes.
Or are you implying that every single company doing business in China is a human rights violator?

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Runaway1956]

A fair question might be, "Which was more repressive - the feudal state that the Dalai represents, or the communist state that built hospitals and freed the peons from their feudal masters?"

I don't think censorship is the way to go. Past censorship seems only to have triggered the Streisand effect. Worse, it has turned the Dalai into something of an icon. But, the Dalai gets no sympathy from me. Nor would he get any sympathy from anyone who actually researched the state of affairs in Tibet when China took it over. FFS, they were living in the 10th century, and China brought them up to the 17th century in a single generation!! There is every hope that they'll reach the 20th century before the rest of the world finishes with the 21st now.

Under the Dalai's system of worship, they couldn't even compete with Kim il Yong's Korea!

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[sopssa]

And you can apply the same kind of "censorship" in the US and elsewhere too. Apple wont let you release apps to the app store that break laws, just the same way they wouldn't let you release some app praising Hitler in Germany.

There are no principles involved - it's a company making money for its shareholders for gods sake. They wont fight the impossible-to-win fight against China government, instead they just do like any other company working in any country would do - play by the rules.

Principles

[tangent3]

Looking at the comments around, I'd say it seems far easier to demand that someone else follow your set of principles... than to follow them yourself.

Stupid

[anonieuweling]

There's stupid comments about local laws.
It appears that people do not discern any difference between laws and ethics.
Not everything that is forbidden by law is unethical.
Not all that is bad is forbidden by law.
And companies without the least of a spine are dime-a-dozen.
What is apple doing to explain the chinese that this is 'not so nice'?
Same for other situations that are in the way of truly free markets? (yes, markets aren't free, even yours isn't free)

It's called a principle.

[Arancaytar]

There's a difference.

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[beh]

Well, without having read to much about Tibetan history - but what gives one nation the right to 'force' another nation into the 21st century?

How well would it wash with the American public, if the US government tried to force electricity and the Internet down the Amish people's throats?

It's all nice and well for US companies to demand that other countries accept free markets, but at the same time, they do not grant those nations the 'right' to live however they want -- when did you last see an electronic billboard advertising Coke in an Amish town?

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Runaway1956]

Fair question. And, a tough one to answer. I guess you have to look at the end results. Let me see - under colonialism, a native African was little more than property, to be disposed of as some white landowner wished. Under today's dictatorships and/or lawless regimes, most native Africans are little more than property, to be disposed of as any warlord, dictator, or religious zealot wishes.

Well, you've got me, really. It's hard to say which system I would rather live under. I guess it sucks to be African?

You're right. Law should be followed all the time

[IYagami]

Indeed, Rosa Parks should have obeyed the law and leave her seat to other people... according to your thoughts, no?

Sometimes you have to stand up against certain things.

Apple Supplier Code of Conduct

[evilsofa]

You would think from this thread that Apple has never advocated for human rights in China:
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/
Isn't it better for Apple to do it that way than to piss off the country that manufactures nearly everything Apple sells?

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[TheRaven64]

Well, without having read to much about Tibetan history - but what gives one nation the right to 'force' another nation into the 21st century?

You mean like bringing democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan?

Well, then maybe we customers should do so too

[unity100]

i mean, let go of some principles. like, respecting copyright ownership, patent rights and so on and pirate their products like there is no tomorrow. i bet they would go berserk if we did that wouldnt they. and maybe they deserve such a hypocrisy for their own hypocrisy.

No Surprise Here...

[flyneye]

This sort of news isn't surprising to anyone. You'd have to live in a cave under a rock not to realize Google and Yahoo would both feed a dead rat sandwich to their mothers if it meant a pennys profit.

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Maybe you should ask these guys? Dig those shades, huh?

Maybe you should look up the word that is painted across the top of that picture.
Clueforyou: By definition Amish restrictions don't apply.

Re:You're right. Law should be followed all the ti

[karnal]

In that context, shouldn't you say "Sometimes you have to sit down against certain things." :)

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Runaway1956]

There is no false dichotomy. "Glorious" or not, the nobility and the clergy of Tibet worked together to enslave the rest of the population of Tibet. While healers were available for those chosen few among the wealthy, no healers were available for ANY peasant. As has been pointed out many times, by many people, religion was a weapon in the hands of the clergy with which to oppress the peasantry. As has been seen many times the world around, the "clergy" weren't really believers in what they preached. Instead, the preaching was a tool used to keep the population in line.

The Dahli Lama of today is only a single generation removed from an oppressive barbaric regime. The man has never made any sacrifice on behalf of his people - instead he still calls on his people to sacrifice for him.

My contempt for politicians in general is multiplied by an order of magnitude for "royalty" and "hereditary spiritual leaders".

In short, if the Dali were on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to save his life.

That has NOTHING to do with Buddhism. Nothing at all.

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Anonymous Coward]

What China did was use force of arms to overthrow the government of a country in order to impose their own political will there. If you're wondering how something like that would wash with the American public, you should turn on the news, because we're doing it in at least two countries that we know about, and probably a few more that we don't yet.

Re:Principals? Nice editing, slashdot.

[fnj]

You so right. Good inglish gramer and speling is so much moar importent than talkin about hyoomen rites.

Microsoft?

[WindBourne]

Hmmm. I seem to recall that Microsoft was the first search engine to cave into Chinese demand to censorship, as well as turning over their source code to China, and that Google at least showed that a link was censored. So, why is it, that MS is not mentioned in the header?

Let's see here...

[Legion303]

Apple (along with any other company in its position) can do business in China according to its laws, Break China's laws, or refuse to do business in China. Only one of these options is guaranteed to make these companies money. If you think they're going to choose idealism over cash, you have some high-grade pot at your disposal.

Re:Apple sucks that Chinese tit

[Blue Stone]

>China brought them up to the 17th century in a single generation!!

So it's an improvement to go from being a 'free' people living in a less than perfect feudalist state to an occupied people suffering genocide and cultural decimation; an oppressed and hated minority in your own land?

I hope you one day are able to experience the kind of liberation the Tibetan people underwent, since you think it's so spiffing.

China also hates bikini girls apparently

[smoothlandon]

Apple is very cautious about what they allow in the store because they are a VERY big target. The stories about difficulty getting apps approved are not exaggerated. I tried to release a Bobble Head Obama app before the election last year and it was rejected because it "ridiculed a public figure" - I responded that caricature was not the same thing as ridicule and never heard back from anyone. My most recent game took over a month to make it through their hoops - apparently it's ok to show massive amounts of cleavage like the infamous "Asian Boobs" app but if you have cartoon bikini chicks in the icon you've gone too far. I finally got my game in the store but was told that it would not be sold in China. I guess the Chinese hate girls in bikinis too! http://bit.ly/8Q0vyA