Mikey Campbell
Apple is embroiled in yet another App Store controversy after it demanded that Telegram remove content related to the ongoing political scandal in Belarus.
Outlined by Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in a post to his own platform, the controversy lies not only in what Apple requested, but also how it structured the demand under App Store guidelines.
On Oct. 8, Durov said Apple requested Telegram shut down three content channels run by pro-democracy protestors. Owners of the channels used Telegram's public forum feature to disseminate information on resistance efforts targeting Belarusian President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, who is in a standoff with opponents after running a rigged election in September.
Uprisings in the country have been met with violence and Lukashenko this week threatened to use lethal weapons against protestors. The Belarusian president is currently facing down the specter of European Union sanctions if he does not agree to new elections, according to The New York Times.
Apple waded into the fray by declaring certain posts in violation of App Store rules. The company was concerned that publishing the personal information of law enforcement officials could incite violence, Durov said.
"I think this situation is not black and white and would rather leave the channels be, but typically Apple doesn't offer much choice for apps like Telegram in such situations," Durov wrote in a post dated Oct. 8. "Unfortunately, I assume these channels will end up getting blocked on iOS, but remain available on other platforms."
Apple later told Gazeta that it did not want to close the channels, but instead sought the removal of specific posts "disclosing personal information." Durov countered, saying the three accounts in question "consist entirely of personal information of violent oppressors and those who helped rig the elections," concluding that the removal of offending posts effectively equates to shutting down those channels.
As noted by Daring Fireball's John Gruber on Wednesday, the Telegram controversy goes beyond App Store rules and raises questions as to how Apple enforces developer regulations.
In a Telegram post on Oct. 9, Durov points to policies that disallow developers from explaining App Store guidelines to customers.
"Previously, when removing posts at Apple's request, Telegram replaced those posts with a notice that cited the exact rule limiting such content for iOS users," he wrote. "However, Apple reached out to us a while ago and said our app is not allowed to show users such notices because they were "irrelevant"." (Emphasis in original)
Apple caught flak for leveling identical restrictions on Facebook in August. At the time, the social network wanted to issue a transparency notice informing users that it would not be able to roll out a paid event tool on iOS due to the App Store's customary 30% fee. Apple rejected the announcement as "irrelevant."
"I strongly disagree with Apple's definition of "irrelevant". I think the reason certain content was censored or why the price is 30% higher is the opposite of irrelevant," Durov said.
Telegram has butted heads with Apple in the past. In 2018, the app was temporarily banned from the App Store for hosting child pornography. More recently, Durov in July filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission over App Store fees and platform control.
-m.jpg)
Marko Zivkovic
Wesley Hilliard
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Andrew O'Hara
29 Comments
Why is Apple against the pro-democracy protests in Belarus?
Sorry bit this is not any of Apple's business.
Weird. Better shut down Safari, then.
Disgusting that Apple would side with a vile authoritarian regime!
Does it really have to be about gay rights before Tim
Cook smells the coffee?
🤮
Apple has no right to banish Telegram over contents, particularly not over contents that could be accessed via its own Safari browser!
There’s nothing inherent about Telegram pertinent to the information posted, other than Telegram being an uncensored communications platform that anyone can use to transmit whatever information they want to transmit.
What information Party A transmits to Party B using a tool C provided by party D that happens to be distributed by party E’s (Apple) using their platform F (AppStore), is utterly irrelevant.
Is Safari going to include a filter getting rid of information any arbitrarily authoritarian government anywhere objects to?
If not, why does Apple interfere with Telegram?
if Russia, China, Belarus, and North Korea object to Telegram, and Apple really wants to be a commercial whore, then remove the app from those countries AppStores, but don’t pretend the App is in violation of anything other than Apple’s desire to maximize profits in regions with authoritarian governments.
Stop preaching about how privacy is at the core of Apple’s philosophy. Nobody needs privacy for dick pictures, we need privacy to overthrow oppressive governments!
Nobody blames the stockholders. The stockholders own the company and elect the board of directors who can hire or fire the CEO. The problem is that the stockholders care more about money than human rights. Thus Tim Cook obliges them. The buck stops at the stockholders, who are represented at Apple by the Board of Directors. They want Apple to do business in every single dictatorship in the world. Let's name the Apple Board of Directors here, because this is where the real blame lies:
Genentech
Compensation Committee
The Boeing Company
of the United States
Nominating Committee
Nominating Committee
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Audit Committee
https://investor.apple.com/leadership-and-governance/default.aspx <--
The problem is the board of directors didn't read the last word in that decree: "ethics"... all they saw was "interests of shareholders" and "business success". These are contradictory criteria, and you know which one wins.
May I remind people that normally I am one of Apple's biggest supporters on this website, but I'm not a supporter when it comes to their ethics. Of course, I can't see ethics in most other companies either, so Apple is just run-of-the-mill on ethics.