Regardless of whether Apple bows down to pressure on this, it shows you how they think. It’s their phone, not yours. Tim Apple is your daddy and as long as you live under his roof, you live under his rules. And he’s just made it clear he can enter your room whenever he likes and search your drawers. Might be time to think about moving out.
Problem is, where do you go? Do you move in with creepy uncle Google next door? No, he’s even worse.
And your banking app only works on iOS and Android…
…I’m seeing people say “just don’t use an iPhone.” It’s not that simple when everyday things like financial apps with two-factor authentication are locked into the two main platforms.
We need legislation to ensure critical services use open standards so you can use your Pinephone to buy lunch in the future.
It’s shocking how easily some folks jump to “just go live in a cave.” No, that’s not an acceptable alternative. We deserve to partake in modern life without sacrificing our human rights…
…It’s also victim blaming to tell everyday people they’re at fault for using one of the two main tech platforms instead of an (as of yet inaccessible) alternative. (I have two Pinephones and my room overflows open hardware. No, I don’t blame you for using an iPhone or an Android device. You’re the victim here.)
Blame the actual culprits: clueless legislators/policymakers who allow these monopolies to continue and fail to protect our human rights. Blame Big Tech and those who enable it…
…This isn’t about whether Apple backs down on this or not (although that’s important too in the here and now and you should sign this letter to put pressure on them.)
This is a greater struggle to protect personhood in the digital network age. Today, we extend ourselves with technology. Not owning and controlling these aspects of ourselves is a violation of our personhood.
To put it blunt:
Talk is cheap. The only thing that really matters, are your actions.
If you buy another iNarc device after this, your actions show that you don't care about this *enough* to stop buying their stuff. In a capitalist society, where you spend your money is what actually counts.
Most people don't know better or have shown with their actions to not care enough for quite a while (#PrivacyParadox).
For you, I see someone making excuses for themselves to keep buying iNarcs.
@FreePietje And you’re deluded if you think that voting with your wallet will be enough to tackle this issue without constitutional/legislative change.
But sure, man, I’m the real problem here.
I've never said that voting with your wallet is enough. For Apple, the only thing that counts is exactly how you vote with your wallet.
I've also never said that you're the real problem. Because that's our current society where convenience Trumps everything and (most) people show to not actually care about privacy.
I can't and won't blame you for things wrong in society*, but I can hold you account for your own actions.
*) I'm actually grateful that you usually highlight them clearly
Most people don't (even) have the knowledge about the invasions of privacy. And if they do, they (generally) don't have the (technical) knowledge to switch to something else.
That does not apply to Aral.
Generally: if ppl knowingly chose a slight convenience gain over a massive privacy loss every single time, then they don't actually care about privacy.
IME/IMO that is the case.
Still I think Aral has a valid point, when he says that the solution should not be to cut yourself off from the internet and live in the 80ies.
That's like saying, sorry but climate change is coming anyways. Let's stop fighting and just all move to places that are least affected.
Not everybody has the mental and financial means to do that.
It is of course your choice how to do that. You can create and promote alternatives, or you can try to gain political influence, or probably a lot of things in between.
I never said or implied that anyone should live as in the 80ies.
Aral lashing out with that shows the hypocrisy of his stance. Day in, day out he complains about how bad capitalism is. But "the world has now fundamentally changed". Why? Because another capitalist corporation shows it doesn't give a crap about privacy?
He portraits Apple as the savior and keeper of human rights.
JFC, give me a break 🙄
Just like you don't have to go back to the 80ies, there is a middle ground.
You can make choices that do *less* harm. And everyone can make that choice. What that amounts to will differ from person to person and that's fine.
But I do think people have agency and I disagree with portraying everyone as a *completely* helpless victim.
We can (slowly) change society, because we're part of that.
For everyone who, like you, calls anyone buying Apple products a traitor, there is seomeone saying the same about Android, about Windows, Driving cars, flying, using air conditionong, not having a zero-energy home, buying clothes at H&M or Primark ... it's impossible for any human to comply with all such demands, (...)
==> By all means, encourage people to do the right thing in every regard, but don't accuse them of not giving a fuck when they would rather change the technical/legal framework to automate that task for everyone. That's way more powerful than individual choices, and Aral is already about as fanatic about it as I can bear :)
Also: I've never had an Apple device and don't want one, but this finger-pointing is really getting on my nerves.
@Mr_Teatime "[...] you, call(s) anyone buying Apple products a traitor"
My use of 'you' in my initial response (to Aral) was ambiguous, so I clarified that I did *not* mean 'you' in the general sense. I don't know how I can make it any clearer.
Me: "there is a middle ground"
You: "You're arguing exclusively in terms of extremes"
Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I said?
It's pretty much the opposite of what I said and *clarified*.
sorry, I read your toots in the wrong order, and didn't bother to correct later...
That said: You were pretty absolute in "if you do X, then you don't care", withoutbregarding what other things he's doing. And your response read as if I'd claimed that individuals had zero responsobility, which I think we both agree is completely wrong.
I think it's best if everyone tries to pull their weight as well as they think they @Mopsi - 1/3
I suppose my reply to you is this: The responsibility does lie with everyone, but I think it is a bad strategy to "vote with your wallet" and trying to achieve policy changes is a better way to spend your energy.
And if someone manages to change the policy using Apple's phones. They still achieved the goal!
So yeah, finger pointing is dumb and I think I have to work on this myself too.
no worries, I also lost track of the thread myself ... also: complete agreement on responsibility:
Individuals absolutely do have responsibility, but a few individuals boykotting something achieves almost nothing compared to regulation/recognition of fundamental rights. And nobody can boykot all the things that should not exist unless we have better alternatives that require the same or less effort from users.
*I* think 'voting with your wallet' is the only thing (a company like) Apple cares about.
And if they do sth bad like this and you subsequently still buy other products from them, you give the signal "no matter what you do, I'll still buy your products". So you're not given them an incentive to change. Quite the opposite.
Ofc you're free to disagree.
If you want laws/society to change, talk f.e. to your representative, not 'some' company.
Online petitions are useless *IMO*.
I would be *extremely* surprised if Apple management, including top-level, didn't anticipate this 'potential' backslash. It would make them completely incompetent, which I don't think they are (at all).
Yet, they decided to go ahead with it anyway.
What signal would they send [to their investors] if they'd change their (strategic) course because a couple of (thousand) people, who may not even be their customers, raised their voice ... online?
Don't worry. I don't mind a discussion (at all), provided it is respectful and in good faith.
If I no longer want to participate in a discussion, I'll just stop responding or say (very) explicitly that I'm out of the discussion.
Of course you're right. And how much less are they going to care if those couple thousand people stopped buying their surveillance devices in favour of Google's surveillance devices?
If, however, the fundamental problem of the human right to privacy was adressed in a law, or if Aral's work helps to make independence from both Apple and Google easy to attain for "ordinary people" ... they would not have a choice but comply.
There's article 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
While not legally binding, most countries have ratified (large) parts of it. Certainly the last 2 decades there has been a vast erosion of our right to privacy and I haven't seen an indication of that changing any time soon. Rather the opposite.
I think "voting with your wallet" is one of tje weakest measures.
If we relied on people's wallets for food safety, then food poisoning would be the #1 reason for sick leave, by a decent margin.
That's because noone can test what exactly is in all the food they buy. Which is why we have legal minimum standards and obligations to print certain information on the package. Without those, safe eating would be a full-time job.
Oh yeah that's what I meant actually. Send the petition to your representative, not to Apple.
Still, I think voting with your wallet is a lie that was sown by companies themselves. Good example is the individual carbon footprint. Idk if you heard that story, but it was promoted heavily by BP, because they know it makes their struggle much easier if they fight individuals instead of political parties or NGOs.
You appear to be less cynical then I am wrt the latter.
I thought that the EU could be persuaded to enact such laws, until #ChatControl happened:
So that illusion went out the door.
The US enacting such laws? Never. They think/act like there's competition. Besides, when was the last time US gov put restrictions on US corps?
I also think that Apple made a calculated decision:
"We may lose some customers, ie privacy activists, but we'll likely gain more customers who actually think this is a good thing" (parents buying their young kids iNarcs, bc now it's 'safe').
They'll likely indeed gain those (new) customers. And if those privacy activist also keep buying iNarcs, then there is literally no downside for Apple.
Voting with your wallet, ie no more buying iNarcs, at least brings *a* downside.
I think you are overestimating the number of sales Apple cares about and underestimating the number of calls and messages, politicians care about.
If 10k people in the US would stop buying Apple phones, Apple would not give a fuck. If 10k people called their representatives and talked to them about that issue, possibly on a regular basis, these representatives would realize that there is a concern in the population.
I agree with what you said above.
But I also think it's hypocritical to be so strongly against what Apple is doing, yet still keep buying their products.
(I'm talking about people who have the (technical) capabilities to make a different choice, not 'average Joe/Jane'.)
»I don't think anything will change Apple's mind/course.«
Apple doesn't *have* a mind, it's a company.
It tries to present some human image but you know that's rubbish. They have no conviction
Apple is going to change what it does quickly, but only if circumstances change, like laws and regulations. Or if "the market" changes, e.g. if there were viable free alternatives to things that Apple uses to tie them to itself. That's currently not sufficiently the case.
And this is actively exploited by companies! If you spend all your time setting up the less convenient services that make you independent of Apple and Google, you won't have enough time and energy left to change policies. But as long as you work on your own solutions, you are a much much smaller threat than if you joined a party or NGO!
=> Bildet Banden!
She was on her way from a week long congress on climate policy and on her way to a party convention and the only train station, where she had the time to get food, only had a McDonald's.
There is no way, that this one meal has more negative impact than all her work and she really needed food...
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!