[mcherm]

> I don't think the laws are dictating Apple to completely turn off the accounts, but instead dictate that Apple should take measures against it.

You misunderstand the nature of financial regulation. The laws on things like money laundering are intentionally vague, they say things like "Apple should take measures against it". And financial regulators will not come out and say (especially in writing) that you MUST do any particular thing (like ban customers entirely on suspicion).

What they WILL do is ask probing questions, frown a lot, and make suggestions. Which the company had better take seriously. Because the financial regulators have the ability to simply close down your business, and if you cross enough of the unclear lines they will do so.

[AnthonyMouse]

This is also one of the reasons the government is fond of gag orders. If companies could tell you "sorry we closed your account because of government pressure" then at least you would know why, but then you would know why. Which could give you standing to challenge it or create bad PR for the government and generate public outrage sufficient to make them stop doing that.

So instead they censor the company from telling you the reason, because everyone whose account is locked is guilty of Terrorism, obviously, and the people actually committing fraud would be unable to discern that they've tripped the detection system from the fact that their account is locked unless you told them that was why. Certainly not because it would make people unsympathetic to what the government is doing.

[embedding-shape]

> Because the financial regulators have the ability to simply close down your business

You misunderstand how business regulation works in free countries. Financial regulators can't just "simply close down your business" however they want, unless you live in a country that is primarily authoritarian.

Again, I'm not saying closing down accounts isn't easier than turning of functionality, but companies could chose the "harder route" if they did care about the users themselves. Alas, most companies priority remains "make more money above all".

[queenkjuul]

Every company's priority has always been "make more money above all," it's just that once upon a time some of them beloved that treating their workers and customers well was a part of that goal. History has shown them that wasn't really necessary.

And don't think for a second the US federal government couldn't do a huge amount of damage to anyone it feels like by way of its financial regulators. In general it's better for the US government if Apple continues to exist, though.

[embedding-shape]

> Every company's priority has always been "make more money above all,"

Maybe that's true where you live, but it's definitely not true all over the world, many economies have a free economy yet companies exist for public benefit, not shareholder value generation. It's out there, wouldn't be impossible to implement where you live either.

> And don't think for a second the US federal government couldn't do a huge amount of damage to anyone it feels like by way of its financial regulators

Right, I agree. But I also qualified my statement to not be valid in authoritarian countries, so maybe not the greatest example to use.

[queenkjuul]

> many economies have a free economy yet companies exist for public benefit,

I really don't believe you, honestly, unless you're talking only about little mom and pop shops. and what other country would have more regulatory influence on Apple than the US?

[rvnx]

A bit like OpenAI (non-profit) or Anthropic (public-benefit-corporation). Based on their business model it is clear that profitability is not their goal, and in their own statements: greater good for the humanity

[queenkjuul]

Lmao and you believe them?

[nullfield]

I don’t know. You can’t buy the kind of loyalty that treating your customer well earns you (nor buy revocation of the spite that treating them poorly does).

Particular airline like United makes your life hell, or even behaves sloppily and heavily inconvenienced you? You not only hate them, you actively go out of your way to tell your friends, family, and anyone who asks your opinion that you hate them. And why you hate them. (Lost one/only bag, for longer than an entire trip, over ten years ago.) And go out of your way, even at higher cost, to avoid them. (Have never flown United afterwards.)

Aside: We know this can be done competently; see Japan. They’ll even fail sometimes, but I suspect that nearly-always, someone from the airline would be delivering the bag personally after they obsessively located it, as opposed to the “meh” attitude US carriers take.

On the other hand, some company like Valve: for an out-of-warranty product (just time, current-model Steam Deck) that was purchased outside the country and gray-market imported (consumer level, just carried out to another country)… and which they don’t sell in your country… they demurred a bit then agreed to ship a replacement part to the original purchaser. At zero cost. Dealing with product issues isn’t fun, but we all know issues arise sometimes, and they killed the “delight the customer” goal.

Some companies still care, and I’d argue that treating your customers like crap while attempting to extract maximum “short term value” doesn’t actually work. Not in the long term, and in the short term, well… it depends on your definition of “short term”. One bad incident can go viral and wreck your quarterly earnings.

[queenkjuul]

The problem is that you and me and every person we've ever met could stop flying United today and they'll keep making billions of dollars for the rest of our lives. Clearly they can horribly mistreat huge numbers of people before it actually risks their business. Same with Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft... In fact it's easier with tech companies.