It’s interesting that we’re all terrified of big tech’s growing base of power over our lives, yet more and more we expect big tech to take care of problems that governments are typically responsible for.
Big tech is already very powerful, and there are very few feasible ways to stop that. But it is a bit more feasible to demand that big tech use its power in certain ways. They are already at the point where almost anything they do will have an impact with moral implications, the way that an elephant walking through a field is going to crush some flowers or grasses. (See, for instance, Twitter aiding the Arab Spring by basically just existing, Facebook aiding the Rohingya genocide by basically just existing, and WhatsApp enabling mob violence in India by basically just existing.)
So, we might as well demand that they step on the things we wish them to step on.
This quickly leads to unintended consequences. What happens if a large group of people (perhaps wearing red hats with a four letter acroynym) decide they want big tech to step on a flower you hold dear?
I don't think I'll be able to prevent them from making that demand simply if I don't make demands either. (I certainly don't think that they're not smart enough to realize that a demand could be made until they see me make one, for instance, nor that they're that exact shade of polite that thinks this is an illegitimate tactic until they see it used at which point it becomes legitimate.) So I don't think this is, in any way, a consequence.
Even asking big tech to step on them seems to have a better chance of accomplishing my goals.
> I don't think I'll be able to prevent them from making that demand simply if I don't make demands either. (I certainly don't think that they're not smart enough to realize that a demand could be made until they see me make one, for instance, nor that they're that exact shade of polite that thinks this is an illegitimate tactic until they see it used at which point it becomes legitimate.)
It's not that they won't make demands, it's that they'll use your demands to legitimize theirs. If you don't make any then you can credibly defend against theirs by saying that nobody should. If you do, what will you say to theirs? Do as I say not as I do?
> Even asking big tech to step on them seems to have a better chance of accomplishing my goals.
If my demands were going to be listened to, then no legitimizing is necessary for anyone. If legitimizing were necessary, then their demands are useful because they legitimize mine, no?
I'm not interested in defending against theirs by appeal to some principle that I don't think anyone believes in either way. I'm interested in making the case that I'm right and they're not. If I'm not right, I shouldn't win the argument, they should. And I am right and big tech is run by people who aren't smart enough to understand why, we're all screwed anyway so whatever.
I have trouble distinguishing the "don't legitimize it" argument from, say, "You shouldn't engage in political attack ads because it legitimizes the other side using them," "You shouldn't have an army because it legitimizes other countries having an army, and what if they invade you one day," and so forth. Without some concrete reason to believe that the other side either wouldn't or couldn't use a tactic, refusing to use it on principle is just planning to lose.
Yes. The app makes it much more difficult for women to subvert the oppression. Before the app the government used little paper slips to grant travel permission, now the "guardians" get SMS notifications when a woman's passport is scanned.
I’m not advocating that anybody DDOS their SMS system with fake alerts. But at least an app protects against that to a greater degree than an SMS solution. The app creates a safe space for oppression.
The app is not the technology that makes this possible. It's just a webview around their website, and the SMS messages (not push notification) are sent directly to the phone via the cellular network.
Will anyone be able to silently leave the country if this app was pulled from the store? No, the SMS messages would still be sent, because they have nothing to do with the app.
On one hand I think Apple and Google should drop this, and never should have hosted it. On the other hand I disagree with your assesment that “every little bit helps.” Too often these largely symbolic acts do little more than assuage guilt, they don’t improve anyone’s life. Think of it this way, if you’re riddled with cancer, and I offer you a single dose of chemo, you might reasonably complain that I’ve done nothing for you. If I then shrugged and said that at least I tried, and every little bit helps, you’d be well within your rights to laugh in my face.
Sometimes helping just a very little bit is as good as doing nothing, or even worse, because doing nothing at least is unequivocal in terms of moral culpability. In this case we’re talking about Saudi Arabia, a country with vast riches because we all buy their oil and kiss their asses. It’s like my government (U.K.) crying about Yemen while selling the Saudis more weapons.
Helping is a good idea, we shouldn’t host these apps, shouldn’t sell them weapons, and frankly shouldn’t dare to pat ourselves even slightly on the back for it.