As far as I know, they've requested Telegram to take down 3 channels. Doxing was simply what the channels were being used for. Specifically, doxing their oppressors.
As far as I can see they didn’t ask Telegram to take down the channels. Just the individual doxing messages.
As for ‘doxing the oppressors’, three law enforcement officers were indivually targeted. Sure they are part of an oppressive system, but so are many other people.
And what’s the problem? They are oppressors, voluntarily working for an oppressive system. Nobody forced them to beat up old women on the street - they chose to do that. Given that there will be no legal consequences for their brutal acts, why should they not be targeted?
Or do you think that we should put corporations in charge of criminal justice?
If they allowed this channel to continue existing, that would be bad precedent, for example, tomorrow they would have to allow some other channel doxxing US police officers for racism or something.
I think Apple moderating Telegram is bad, but if moderation exists, closing this channel is a consistent thing to do for them. Same rules apply to everybody: no doxxing allowed, and Apple does not decide who is terrorist, and who is freedom fighter.
Surely international law should decide that, and right now the international community very clearly sees the Lukashenko regime as the bad guys - they have been sanctioned, not the protestors.
If the US government is sanctioned and called illegitimate internationally, then again, doxxing those oppressors is fair game.
It’s either that or you let it fester into a shooting war, which is admittedly far more profitable than civil unrest.
So actually, Apple is helping out international criminals, against international precedent.
If international community was crystal clear about this situation, Lukashenko would be in Hague tribunal now.
Yes, Apple is helping international criminals. Because Apple is not the international court and international law enforcement. It’s good that Apple did not make that precedent trying to become one.
We must liberate the people of the world from their non-US backed oppressors so that they may be replaced with US-controlled ones like Pinochet The Shah and Saddam (until he went rogue)
I don't see how it's false given that the only way to do it is to restrict access to those channels on iOS. I still see no difference. "Because your app on our platform we will censor whatever people do in it"
The title here is incorrect, and a good portion of the article is misleading.
Telegram will be restricting access to the channels on iOS, but users on other platforms will continue to be able to access them unimpeded. While this is still a terrible move by Apple, it’s an important distinction to make, as the channels do remain accessible to the majority of people.
I’m not sure why this is getting downvoted. Apple isn’t “forcing Telegram to close channels.” The channels won’t be closed. That doesn’t make Apple’s move any less scummy, but it’s an important distinction for participants of those communities.
It's probably being downvoted because the article literally says "Apple is requesting that Telegram shut down three channels".
Durov hopes that blocking them from iOS and not other platforms will satiate Apple's demands, but it's not definite and according to him, just an assumption.
He goes on to clarify that the request effectively amounts to asking that the channels be deleted, but that restricting them on iOS should be sufficient.
Regardless of your take, at the moment, the following statement is false:
> Apple forces Telegram to Close Channels Run by Belarus Protestors
For now:
1. Apple claims that wasn't their request.
2. The channels won't be closed.
3. Telegram won't be removed from the App Store.
"Apple forces Telegram to Close Channels" makes it sound as though the channels are, in fact, being closed, which isn't the case.
It's one thing to call Apple out on their behavior here, but it's another matter entirely to scare users into thinking that the channels will be deleted--they won't, assuming you're not on iOS. If you're in one of those channels, statistically, you're probably not on iOS anyway.
Ah, comrade, the channels will not be closed, they will merely be... hm... adjusted.
What functional difference is there between banning access to the channel and closing it? And why do Apple have any interest in this, unless they are working at the behest of the Belarusian regime.
> What functional difference is there between banning access to the channel and closing it?
Most of the protesters are probably on Android, not iOS. Apple is still terrible for doing this, but there’s a very important distinction from the perspective of the protesters. If they were to read the title of this article, they would probably think they needed to panic, jump ship, and switch to a different platform. That could be critical misinformation.
From the perspective of Silicon Valley, sure, there’s no difference. From the perspective of a demographic that mostly uses Android anyway and is already fighting against fear and misinformation, articles like this can wreak more havoc than Apple’s questionable tactics.
Because the regime contacted Apple legal, I guess. I am pretty sure there are no Apple offices in Belarus, they probably did it through the Moscow office.
If the point of the channels is to share strategic information related to your oppressive regime, it's disingenuous to claim they "channels aren't being asked to be shutdown" when having delete those specific messages has the same impact - making the channels defunct - and giving Apple a plausible deniability scapegoat/gaslighting of "buT wE DIdn'T asK THeM to tAkE doWn tHE chAnnEL."
Apple is taking sides with an oppressor by requesting this, that they're choosing to ignore the circumstances - where doxxing otherwise generally is bad because generally it's not reasonable - is not reasonable and lacking nuance.
Correct. Apple is demanding that the posts be removed. Apple is not forcing the posts to be removed—as evidenced by the fact that Telegram is still in the App Store and the posts/channels remain visible on Android.
This doesn’t help Apple’s case at all. Apple is garbage here. It’s an important distinction for protesters, who don’t need to panic as long as they’re not on iOS. However, if a protester were to read this title, they would get the wrong information.
Yeah, but those channels are for effectively doxxing LEA workers in Belarus (and people affiliated with them).
While sympathetic to the protest movement there I'm feeling really conflicted in regards to its contents and if channels for coordination of bullying should be accepted on any platform, whatever the reason.
Why not? Lawful aspect aside, Apple states the conditions in their ToS upon which the app will be accepted and will stay available in their ecosystem.
It may seem unfair and counterintuitive, but I suspect that there is non-zero portion of Apple users that happily subscribe to this model.
What we're discussing here has strong political flavor, but this isn't the only case of Apple censoring Telegram's content. For example, all even remotely pornographic channels have been banned in native Telegram apps on iOS for years. Somehow Durov is silent about this (probably because you can't score some cheap publicity over defense of pornography).
His double standards aside: parent buying his child an iPhone is probably much happier due to this policy than not.
Meh I'm just saying my opinion on how a store should behave - if this is illegal let the request come from proper government channels, as for ToS and anti porn protecting children - I don't really care - I know what my child does in his internet activity, there are parental control tools and their internet activity should be whitelist based not blacklisting stuff.
But I don't use Apple iOS precisely because of their ridiculous grip on the ecosystem - even though from a technical perspective Android is pure garbage.
It's not a legal issue, it is a moral issue. An amoral law is not to be followed even if it is your life is on stake, otherwise you will turn into an unvirtuous man.
In this situation, Mr Cook, a man running world's most valuable company, decided to part with virtue, and become a man without honour.
Would Mastodon count? It's federated, and you can point the client to your own instance AFAIK, unless the developer blacklisted some domain names right in the app (willingly or from Apple apps reviewer, not sure if that's a thing).
Another example of Apple having too much control over iOS app distribution and why sideloading should be allowed.