Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Maybe they should pay in superintendents then, or did you mean principles?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
This is not profitable anyway as no one will buy this app.
Buying this app is like bying a ticket to jail...
Guess that ruins that campaign then.
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!
* Carthago Delenda Est *
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.
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!
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?
Guess what, Apple doesn't allow Canadians to purchase certain apps, movies and albums either.
It's called different laws for different markets.
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...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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.
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!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Mod parent +1, Naive
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.
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
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?
Do you also refuse to buy any product made in China?
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?
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?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
>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.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce