ggm
15 hours ago
All kinds of things could be said about the second order effects of them booting an app, and most of them do ultimately involve the threat aspect of state actors or other rich VC class people and what they do.
I think we tend to forget, that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this. Not, what they should think, or do, but providing the cash focussed getout: you have no obligation here.
That passivity brings them advantages. Not having to act, means choosing to "wait and see" is a low bar justifiable decision inside their role and obligations. Not what you and I might think, what they feel obligated to do.
Remember that when Apple did voluntarily explore CSAM scanning logic, the community pushed back hard. So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.
bigyabai
2 hours ago
> that their legals will be telling them they simply don't HAVE to do this.
Their legals are, outright, telling them not to do this. Apple has an App Store monopoly, the moment Grok or X gets booted off then it's lawsuit time for them. Apple could at any point forfeit their monopoly by supporting third-party app distributors. But this is what they chose, and Apple has to balance the abuses with the judgement calls as a result.
> So they have recent experience to drive wanting not to act. It hurt last time.
What does that have to do with anything? Apple doesn't care how much things hurt their users. Any company that would suggest client-side-scanning is entirely willing to hurt their users, you just said it yourself: "most of them do ultimately involve the threat aspect of state actors"