If they choose not to do business will that fix the problem? Will that make these oppressive regimes go away?
Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question.
The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression.
How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression?
(I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc.
In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression.
So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case.
In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)
Oppressive regimes even of the most extreme order still need to deal with reality and the choices of other parties that aren't fully within their control. If Google/Apple were to take a stand here and walk away, it would put tremendous pressure on Pakistani government, and make this a hot button issue. Imagine the entire nation waking up one day to find that their apps no longer function because their leaders made choices that they likely weren't even aware were being made. It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders. Pakistan is a democracy, however broken it may be, and you can sure bet that other political parties would step in to fill this role.
> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people.
I mean no, that's definitely not the analogy. When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression. It's not some innocent bystander thing, they literally have to write code or take other actions to make this happen. Remember, the status quo is that the apps stay in the store today. An explicit action is required to change that.
China did it. Many countries routinely block Google stuff.
> It would certainly cause the constituents of these regimes to reconsider their support of the leaders.
How can we be certain of that? I think many people drastically underestimate the number of people who a) don't care b) are invested in the regime c) gullible d) care, but won't do anything because they don't want to rock the boat, e) care, want to rock the boat, but won't because protesting is still not without some danger.
Yes, sure, other political parties would do whatever they do. Does that work? Not really. (Maybe over long-long periods of time.)
> When Google/Apple remove these apps from their stores, they're directly taking action to further the oppression.
Agreed. Yet it's close to meaningless to look at it in a vacuum. Their choices are a) comply, don't even put up a fight, b) comply, try to exhaust legal options, b) stop doing business there.
I'm asking how to weigh those. What's best for the people of Pakistan. What's best for this particular vulnerable/oppressed group? What's best for all people?
> In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)
Judging from posts here, many people are trying to get off Google. So a better analogy instead of water would be nicotine.
I recommend everybody to do so too. But not for this direct moral reason. (Which I'm honestly and sadly too ignorant and uncertain about.) I think there's room for smaller/niche providers, a subculture of self-hosters.
Monetary greed might be good or bad, they might or might not be doing business there for greed, but it's not the question.
The question is how does oppression algebra works. An oppressive regime is oppressive, by definition, nomen es omen. In this instance we likely agree that forcing private companies to selectively deny service to a minority/vulnerable group of the population is textbook oppression.
How withdrawing from that country/jurisdiction decreases sum-total-oppression?
(I mean the usual argument is that a trade embargo helps people realize that things are bad! Plus it prepares the economy for war, so no one will be surprised when their supplier/distributor/buyers become unavailable due to blockade/bombardment/etc.
In case of selling weapons and surveillance systems the math seems to be simple. But it seems in that case the oppression is again in the name of the game. Rarely oppressed people buy tanks to stand up to that same oppression.
So if a service provider is coerced to provide data about vulnerable/minority groups, that again seems a very textbook case.
In this case maybe the analogy is that Apple/Google is supplying water - for money - but this oppressive regime uses it to waterboard people. Does shutting down the service helps?)