Mike sure seems to be the only one who gets it. Well, at least this aspect, which is the sad reality of how we got here. (with a shoutout to Miles and Lev who bring us the broader picture). And it’s the perfect cure for having a nice day. Frustrating, especially in the face of citizens who still believe we’ll show ‘em in 2026.
When Australia and Norway considered the evidence that social media in its current forms has deleterious effects on the mental health of teenagers, was their answer to demand that the social media companies alter how they function in order to present their services without the deleterious effects?
No.
Their answer was to ban younger teenagers from using social media.
Restrict the freedoms of children--don't actually do anything substantive to force social media to serve them, and society at large, better. That was their answer.
Even in my own country, some provinces have moved to restrict or ban the use of mobile devices in schools, in part to cut down on social media use.
Never mind the autistic child who might have a panic attack and need to call a parent for emotional support. Never mind the kid with a chronic illness who might need to call emergency services if it flares up. (And never mind that the proliferation of mobile phones has led to the removal of payphones that could have been used to call emergency services or make a collect call with a brief message.)
Never mind the teachers who successfully integrated students' use of mobile devices into their lesson plans, having them read about various topics in more depth than the teacher might be able to cover, perhaps even finding sources that provide information of which the teacher was unaware, providing a learning opportunity for everyone in the room.
The answer is never to demand that companies do better by the society in which they exist. The answer is never to say that corporations exist because we allow them to exist, that they can only exist so long as their existence serves the best interests of society.
The answer is always to take away freedoms from the people, and worse, from the most vulnerable among us.
Because it's easier to do that than to demand that rich men do better, because it's easier to do that than confront how past policies led to the current state of affairs, because it's easier to do that than enact actual solutions that enhance human freedom.
"If you end your training now, if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did, you will become an agent of evil."
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."
"If you leave now, help them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered."
I have always thought it odd that in their quest for control and the regimes quest to suck up money, why wouldn't they be concerned at the collapsing economy? Harder to suck up money from a poorer economy. Although controlling the assets would improve compliance.
Wouldn't those goals eventually diverge? Unless these are the initial goals and the longer goals are brainwashed military and serfs.
Can you elaborate on your comment re: Apple’s “building surveillance infrastructure for authoritarian regimes“? I find scant specific evidence of this. Almost any technological tool has the potential for misuse. Nearly all such surveillance tools, whether used by countries or home owners, have and will be designed and deployed for either protection (freedom from) or spying (freedom to). Wild unsupported allegations do not serve your readers.
Doing business with China does put pressure on Apple. However, I believe the referenced article does not constitute “building surveillance infrastructure”. It is, however, certainly the most extreme bespoke set of products they’ve delivered for sale to customers. Moral high ground and business are at best a tenuous proposition.
What do you think backdoors for the Chinese government are if not surveillance infrastructure? Would you prefer surveillance affordance, or surveillance software? What an annoying semantic protest.
I guess my understanding of “backdoor” is substantially different from yours. As I understand it, Apple’s not providing such a thing on the devices it sells to Chinese consumers. Nor are the encryption keys being provided to the Chinese government. The iCloud is and has always been an option for consumers, not a requirement.
In this day and age governments can and do obtain software to break into all manner of hardware, let alone networks and servers, if desired.
At least, among the companies you highlighted, Apple makes an effort to repel those from seeking to access customer private data. Painting them with the same brush diminishes your argument.
Mike sure seems to be the only one who gets it. Well, at least this aspect, which is the sad reality of how we got here. (with a shoutout to Miles and Lev who bring us the broader picture). And it’s the perfect cure for having a nice day. Frustrating, especially in the face of citizens who still believe we’ll show ‘em in 2026.
The complicity of other governments in this cannot be overlooked.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/23/norway-to-increase-minimum-age-limit-on-social-media-to-15-to-protect-children
When Australia and Norway considered the evidence that social media in its current forms has deleterious effects on the mental health of teenagers, was their answer to demand that the social media companies alter how they function in order to present their services without the deleterious effects?
No.
Their answer was to ban younger teenagers from using social media.
Restrict the freedoms of children--don't actually do anything substantive to force social media to serve them, and society at large, better. That was their answer.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/cellphones-in-schools
Even in my own country, some provinces have moved to restrict or ban the use of mobile devices in schools, in part to cut down on social media use.
Never mind the autistic child who might have a panic attack and need to call a parent for emotional support. Never mind the kid with a chronic illness who might need to call emergency services if it flares up. (And never mind that the proliferation of mobile phones has led to the removal of payphones that could have been used to call emergency services or make a collect call with a brief message.)
Never mind the teachers who successfully integrated students' use of mobile devices into their lesson plans, having them read about various topics in more depth than the teacher might be able to cover, perhaps even finding sources that provide information of which the teacher was unaware, providing a learning opportunity for everyone in the room.
The answer is never to demand that companies do better by the society in which they exist. The answer is never to say that corporations exist because we allow them to exist, that they can only exist so long as their existence serves the best interests of society.
The answer is always to take away freedoms from the people, and worse, from the most vulnerable among us.
Because it's easier to do that than to demand that rich men do better, because it's easier to do that than confront how past policies led to the current state of affairs, because it's easier to do that than enact actual solutions that enhance human freedom.
"If you end your training now, if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did, you will become an agent of evil."
"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."
"If you leave now, help them you could, but you would destroy all for which they have fought and suffered."
Headline: NUTSHELL!
Great essay. Thank you.
I have always thought it odd that in their quest for control and the regimes quest to suck up money, why wouldn't they be concerned at the collapsing economy? Harder to suck up money from a poorer economy. Although controlling the assets would improve compliance.
Wouldn't those goals eventually diverge? Unless these are the initial goals and the longer goals are brainwashed military and serfs.
Can you elaborate on your comment re: Apple’s “building surveillance infrastructure for authoritarian regimes“? I find scant specific evidence of this. Almost any technological tool has the potential for misuse. Nearly all such surveillance tools, whether used by countries or home owners, have and will be designed and deployed for either protection (freedom from) or spying (freedom to). Wild unsupported allegations do not serve your readers.
The products they sell to Chinese customers are modified to plug-in to Beijing's surveillance systems. The evidence is not "scant". https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html
Doing business with China does put pressure on Apple. However, I believe the referenced article does not constitute “building surveillance infrastructure”. It is, however, certainly the most extreme bespoke set of products they’ve delivered for sale to customers. Moral high ground and business are at best a tenuous proposition.
What do you think backdoors for the Chinese government are if not surveillance infrastructure? Would you prefer surveillance affordance, or surveillance software? What an annoying semantic protest.
I guess my understanding of “backdoor” is substantially different from yours. As I understand it, Apple’s not providing such a thing on the devices it sells to Chinese consumers. Nor are the encryption keys being provided to the Chinese government. The iCloud is and has always been an option for consumers, not a requirement.
In this day and age governments can and do obtain software to break into all manner of hardware, let alone networks and servers, if desired.
At least, among the companies you highlighted, Apple makes an effort to repel those from seeking to access customer private data. Painting them with the same brush diminishes your argument.
What I want to know, is if Tim Cook brought another gold bar to accompany his obsequiousness at dinner last night. One wonders!
Now- what are WE going to DO about all of that?