[samus]

Such apps can be forbidden by law, and then this would be quite unambiguous. This is criticizing a company bending over backwards to what the government wants. Not really surprising, since none of these companies supports free speech for the sake of it, but to further its business, but still.

[MichaelZuo]

“ bending over backwards” seems to be just an opinion, or collection of opinions…?

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but clearly there has to be some credible argument why opinion X is better than opinion Y (held by company decision makers).

Assuming it’s just automatically better isn’t productive.

[samus]

Indeed, an opinion held by legal experts, as the title of the submission quite clearly expresses. And on the other hand there is a history of Apple refusing other government requests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93FBI_encryption_d...

[MichaelZuo]

It doesn’t matter if every expert concurred, arguments from authority can not lead to opinion X becoming superior to opinion Y.

At least not in a logically valid way.

[samus]

A government agency can tell people whatever it wants, if it doesn't have a legal basis then it has no authority. Unless it doesn't respect the rule of law. It might and probably will follow up its orders with force, but that's still not lawful.

[MichaelZuo]

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

I don’t see how it relates to the prior comment.

[samus]

What is an "argument from authority"?

[samus]

Indeed, an opinion held by legal experts, as the title of the submission quite clearly expresses.