It’s almost time for WWDC21 – starting with an Apple Keynote full of empty words and broken promises. While you watch the show online at apple.com, ask Apple on social media why they censor so many apps, using the hashtags #WhereAreAllTheApps, #applecensorship and #WWDC21.

<img src="https://imagedelivery.net/NHMgb1rcyLEYLdoYfPVw7Q/27b62645-4fd0-45ef-8976-3292820a7b00/public" alt="undefined" style="margin:0 auto;height: auto;width: auto"/>

WWDC21

On December 22, 2022 AppleCensorship releases two reports simultaneously, both highlighting Apple’s censorship of its App Stores and the company’s many compromises with authoritarian regimes.

The first report focuses on how Apple censors in Hong Kong.  As human rights and fundamental freedoms in the territory shrink, including digital rights, Apple is reluctant to take any commitment to uphold its users rights to access information freely and express their views online. The second report looks at Apple’s presence in Russia up until the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022 and highlights the issues posed by Apple’s lack of transparency surrounding its App Store policies, including compliance with international sanctions.

Both reports highlight how far Apple is willing to go to safeguard its relationship with authoritarian regimes and maintain access to those markets.

“In the name of profit, Apple censors millions of users from all aspects of society: from activists and political figures to members of vulnerable minorities such as the LGBTQ+ community in Russia or religious and ethnic minorities in China,” said Benjamin Ismail, Director of the AppleCensorship project.&nbsp;

“<a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AppleCensorship_Report_United-Apple-c.pdf" target="_self">United Apple: Apple’s censorship and compromises in Russia</a>“&nbsp;
<div style="text-align:left;"><img src="https://imagedelivery.net/NHMgb1rcyLEYLdoYfPVw7Q/d33c9583-357f-4f72-a338-11616e05ed00/public" alt="undefined" style="height: auto;width: 30%"/></div>
In AppleCensorship’s report focusing on Russia, entitled “United Apple” in reference to Russian president Vladimir Putin’s party “United Russia”, the organization has taken a deeper look at Russia’s App Store, where many LGBTQ+ related apps are blocked.

While many “Shopping”, “Finance” and “Business” apps were removed from the Russian App Store shortly after the start of the war in Ukraine, AppleCensorship’s research has revealed much more worrying trends:

●          Patterns of app removals from Russia’s App Store detected by the App Store Monitor (ASM) suggest that specific groups of apps have been targeted by the Russian authorities and that a system of Apple-enforced targeted censorship is in place in Russia’s App Store.
●          LGBTQ+ related apps constitute the most prominent type of apps being unavailable in Russia’s App Store, with at least 25 apps currently unavailable, including some of the most popular LGBTQ+ apps in the world.
●          More than 30 VPN and private browsing apps have been taken down since the start of the war in Ukraine, while the Russian authorities were announcing that “measures were being taken to limit access to VPN services that violate Russian law”.
●          Although Russia’s App Store does not reflect the present government-controlled media landscape, the list of unavailable news apps continues to grow as the App Store Monitor unveils new foreign media blocked or removed from Russia’s App Store.
●          Apple’s recent actions regarding several other apps operated by companies owned by Russian oligarchs who have been sanctioned, point towards contradictory behavior from Apple, and raise questions whether Apple’s opaque management of its App Store is compatible with the necessary scrutiny and respect for human rights principles and values that is required of private companies.

“Apple’s content curation policies represent a denial of the company’s stated principles and values and show a lack of respect for privacy and the protection of users’ rights. In Russia, Apple has enabled censorship of vulnerable communities while promoting apps that are used by the government for surveillance purposes,” added Ismail.&nbsp;


“<a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Apps-at-Risk_-Apples-Censorship-and-Compromises-in-Hong-Kong.pdf" target="_self">Apps at Risk: Apple’s censorship and compromises in Hong Kong</a>“

<div style="text-align:right;"><img src="https://imagedelivery.net/NHMgb1rcyLEYLdoYfPVw7Q/a18460bb-1068-4e90-3877-c2cdd018ea00/public" alt="undefined" style="height: auto;width: 30%"/></div>

<h2>&nbsp;“Apps at risk” investigates Apple’s censorship in Hong Kong’s App Store and assesses the compromises that Apple has made in the special administrative region.</h2>

Whether pressed by Hong Kong local administration or by the Chinese central government, on a number of occasions Apple has complied with demands to censor content deemed in violation of local laws or simply critical of Beijing.  

“Apps at risk” highlights threats to freedom of information that Apple’s predominance in Hong Kong poses. Some of the key findings included in the report include:

●          Hong Kongers’ reliance on mobile apps that are banned in China to communicate and access information make Apple a defect “kill switch” at the disposal of the Chinese censors.
●          While Hong Kong’s App Store remains relatively free compared to China’s App Store, a series of tests conducted in 2022 reveal that Hong Kong’s App Store is more restrictive than other App Stores considered “free”. The unavailability of apps in the Hong Kong App Store is higher than most of the 173 App Stores monitored by AppleCensorship.
●          In November 2022, a surprisingly high number of VPN and private browsing apps (more than 50) were found to be unavailable in Hong Kong’s App Store.
●          A number of apps related to media and information have been removed globally over the last two years, raising the possibility that self-censorship or censorship by Apple on behalf of the authorities are affecting apps’ availability globally.
●          Apple has not made any public commitment to uphold Hong Kongers’ fundamental rights to access information and express their opinion online. If the Chinese authorities were to increase digital censorship in the region, nobody knows how Apple will respond.

AppleCensorship has issued a set of recommendations for Apple, including demands that Apple declare publicly what measures it will take if Beijing increases its crackdown on digital freedoms and access to information in Hong Kong.

“Apple should make it very clear what actions it will, or will not take, to resist app takedown requests from Beijing or from Hong Kong’s government agencies,” said Ismail.

AppleCensorship has also made a similar demand regarding the company’s presence in Russia, asking that Apple “take measures to prevent any return to a normalization of its relationship with the Russian government.”

“As our two reports show, examples of Apple’s censorship abound. Apple’s temporary withdrawal from Russia following the start of the war in Ukraine, and Apple’s decision to move part of its production out of China, have not provided tangible evidence of any improvement of the situation in the App Store so far. For all we know, Apple is still willing to collaborate with repressive regimes.

We need to ensure that Apple will not contribute further to censorship and the erosion of democracy worldwide. This is why we will continue to monitor and highlight all cases of censorship, as well as to support any legislation that would reduce Apple’s dangerous hegemony over the peoples’ digital space”, Ismail concluded.


Read “<a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/AppleCensorship_Report_United-Apple-c.pdf" target="_self">United Apple: Apple’s censorship and compromises in Russia</a>“
Read “<a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Apps-at-Risk_-Apples-Censorship-and-Compromises-in-Hong-Kong.pdf" target="_self">Apps at Risk: Apple’s censorship and compromises in Hong Kong</a>“&nbsp;

The fundamental rights of millions are impacted when Apple does business with authoritarian regimes

“Taken Down” A Look into Apple’s Transparency Reports

在欧洲限制言论自由是专制者的胜利

When it comes to deciding whether an app should be offered in the App Store, Apple uses a vertical decision-making structure. The order and importance of Apple’s decision-making process runs counter to the normal structure of a legal system in any democratic society.
<img src="https://imagedelivery.net/NHMgb1rcyLEYLdoYfPVw7Q/81abfc2f-1580-4543-fbad-5705c62d4800/public" alt="undefined" style="height: auto;width: 100%"/>

At the top of this scale of rules are the decisions of Apple CEO Tim Cook and Apple management, sometimes brought together in a committee called the App Store Review Board. Cook involves others to encourage collegiality and lend legitimacy to his decisions. Regardless of whether an application meets international standards, local law, or even developer guidelines, Tim Cook and Apple management have the right to determine the availability of any application.

Many applications which serve the public’s interest, host a pluralism of opinions, or strengthen democracy, have seen this sword of Damocles descend upon them. This was the case for the censorship of the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/business/media/new-york-times-apps-apple-china.html" target="_self"><ins>New York Times</ins> <ins>application</ins></a> in 2017. The app’s removal from China’s App Store had nothing to do with compliance with Chinese law or a violation of Apple’s internal rules. This was merely a case of Apple aiding the efforts of the Chinese authorities to censor an independent and critical voice. Ultimately, it was Tim Cook who gave his approval for this baseless removal.

The application of billionaire <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-censorship-data.html" target="_self"><ins>Guo Wengui</ins></a>, the Chinese Communist Party critic who is self-exiled in the United States, was also removed from the Chinese App Store after the intervention of several senior Apple executives. One of these executives claimed, without providing proof, that the app’s content was illegal in China.
The second most important set of rules involved in the removal of apps is contained in the “App Store Review Guidelines”. These guidelines are used as the irrefutable justification for Apple to explain the censorship of any app. In fact, all decisions to remove apps from one, several, or all App Stores could technically be justified by these guidelines. The guidelines include a catch-all super law, which can apply to every censorship decision:

“We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you cross it.“

In 2015, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/30/apple-removing-drone-strikes-app" target="_self"><ins>Metadata+</ins> <ins>and</ins> <ins>Ephemeral+</ins></a>, which both provided news alerts on drone attacks launched by the US military, were removed from all App Stores. In January 2021, the social network <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/9/22221730/apple-removes-suspends-bans-parler-app-store" target="_self"><ins>Parler</ins></a> was removed from all 155 App Stores for allegedly violating Apple’s vague and opaque rules.
It is now a well-established fact that Apple works closely with the most authoritarian regimes on the planet to ensure the economic sustainability of its operations. Also, it is becoming more and more commonplace for the firm to comply with the censorship requests of said governments. Apple justifies its political censorship decisions by invoking its obligation to “comply with the laws” of the countries in which it operates. Apple conveniently refuses to question the legality of the requests submitted to it by these regimes.

Thousands of apps, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/technology/china-apple-censorhip.html?_r=0" target="_self"><ins>including several hundred VPNs</ins></a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/31/iphone-china-blocks-dalai-lama?mobile-redirect=false" target="_self"><ins>Tibetan</ins></a> and <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-hosts-apps-run-by-china-paramilitary-group-accused-of-uyghur-genocide?utm_content=article-5431&utm_campaign=article_email&utm_source=sg&utm_medium=email" target="_self"><ins>Uyghur religious</ins></a> and cultural apps, apps containing essays on politics, social media apps, and privacy tools have been blocked in China on charges of being illegal in the country.

In August 2021, Apple removed the gay social networking app <a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-apple-removes-hornet-gay-dating-app" target="_self"><ins>Hornet</ins></a> from the App Store in Turkey, even though the court ruling used by the firm to justify its censorship did not require the removal of the application from its platform. On September 13, 2021, the tactical voting application of Russian political opponent Alexey <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/world/europe/russia-navalny-app-election.html" target="_self"><ins>Navalny</ins></a>, was removed by Apple in order to appease the authorities. It also aided Vladimir Putin, who was worried about the popular support enjoyed by his main opponent, who has been imprisoned since March 2021.
Meanwhile, human rights and international standards remain the least considered reasons for the removal of apps by Apple. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apple-human-rights-policy-beijing-censorship-free-speech-a9704981.html" target="_self"><ins>Apple states its “Commitment to Human Rights”</ins></a> in its – almost hidden – <a href="https://s2.q4cdn.com/470004039/files/doc_downloads/gov_docs/Apple-Human-Rights-Policy.pdf" target="_self"><ins>human rights policy document</ins></a>. Although Apple has shown many times that when the  ’legal” demands of repressive governments and human rights are at odds, the company will side with governments.

The end result is that there are a number of apps in Apple’s App Store which directly infringe on human rights, fundamental freedoms, and privacy, yet enjoy full availability in the App Store without fear of meddling by Apple. 

The Saudi Arabia government-owned <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/05/06/saudi-arabias-absher-app-controlling-womens-travel-while-offering-government" target="_self"><ins>Absher</ins></a> let Saudi men track the movement of women and also allowed men to prevent women from leaving the country. A number of apps developed by a Chinese State-owned economic and paramilitary organization, the <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/apple-hosts-apps-run-by-china-paramilitary-group-accused-of-uyghur-genocide" target="_self"><ins>Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps</ins></a>, which has been sanctioned by the US government, remain in the App Store.
This chart reflects the inequity of how Apple applies international, national, and internal regulations and standards, and in particular the arbitrariness that prevails in their decision-making. We encourage Tim Cook to use this chart as a basis to find a coherent, fair, ethical, and responsible scale of norms. 

But for that to happen, Apple must start by flipping its own scale of values upside down. Only then can Tim Cook say, hand on heart “We are not afraid to say that our values drive our curation decisions“.

Apple values are upside down

<a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/techland-when-great-power-competition-meets-digital-world/antitrust-action-supports-human" target="_self">Read the article on The National Interest</a> (Published by The Center for the National Interest)

GreatFire is a China-based, anti-censorship organization that’s worked since 2011 to expose digital censorship by the Chinese government and help Chinese citizens freely access information. Today, we’re throwing our weight behind two Big Tech antitrust bills <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/big-tech-bill-has-votes-needed-pass-top-us-antitrust-lawmaker-says-2022-06-14/" target="_self">minutes away from a vote</a> in the United States Congress because we want to make clear to policy makers, academics, lawyers, and society at large that taking action on antitrust will improve human rights for people facing government censorship around the world. 

In 2019, our team began investigating Apple’s relationship with Chinese state censorship—and we found piles of evidence that Apple’s App Store gatekeeps information access in China. Our project, <a href="https://applecensorship.com/" target="_self">AppleCensorship.com</a>, reviewed iOS App Store data, interviewed developers, and fact checked Apple’s statements and policies. So far, our partners and contributors have identified <a href="https://applecensorship.com/app-store-monitor/na/CN" target="_self">almost 10,000 apps that are unavailable in China’s App Store</a>, including Apple’s own News app. In fact, two hundred of these unavailable apps are news apps—a critical sign of ongoing oppression of access to information.

App takedowns from Apple’s app stores are just one example of the <a href="https://applecensorship.com/taken-down-a-look-into-apples-transparency-reports/" target="_self">well-documented</a> censorship policies resulting from Apple’s relationship with Beijing (those policies also include censorship of media, design, emojis, engravings, and more). And while other tech companies like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/technology/facebook-censorship-tool-china.html" target="_self">Meta</a> and <a href="https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/" target="_self">Google</a> have considered country-specific measures that would feed Chinese state repression in similar ways, Apple has gone the farthest in terms of implementing these policies. 

Fortunately, two bills in the US Congress offer real hope in the fight to limit Big Tech’s human rights violations in authoritarian states: the Open App Markets Act (OAMA) and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA).

OAMA and AICOA would bring about a number of <a href="https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/2022/04/11/childrens-online-privacy-not-threatened-but-enhanced-open-app-bill/9513911002/" target="_self">critical</a> <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/578133-big-tech-platforms-stifle-innovation-through-anticompetitive/" target="_self">challenges</a> to Big Tech monopoly rule. Most significantly for Chinese communities and others living under authoritarian rule, they would give people freedom to choose their tools and devices themselves, instead of being constrained by the choices made for them by Big Tech monopolies. Local activists, journalists and lawyers would finally gain access to robust VPN apps that do not share their information with authorities. LGBTQ+ community members, ethnic minorities and persecuted religious groups could download tools to organize their communities, like <a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AppleCensorships-Taken-Down-Report-Digital.pdf" target="_self">secure messaging apps</a>. Everyday people would be able to use independent media apps to access uncensored information, including information about the COVID-19 pandemic that has been <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/02/08/803766743/critics-say-china-has-suppressed-and-censored-information-in-coronavirus-outbrea" target="_self">suppressed by state censors</a>. 

OAMA would finally allow the international developer community to offer their apps to Chinese users who have, until now, been prevented from accessing thousands of apps considered “illegal” by China’s Cyber Administration. Both OAMA and AICOA prohibit companies from applying their terms of service in discriminatory ways. Such prohibition may allow for ways to fight back against Apple’s strong inclination to abide to authoritarian governments’ requests to remove LGBTQI+ or religious apps due to “local laws” (including when said laws do not even exist).

In other words, by undercutting Big Tech’s top-down control of digital infrastructure, OAMA and AICOA would create powerful new ways to resist China’s “Great Firewall.” While we’ll continue to monitor and challenge Big Tech’s collusion with the Chinese government for the foreseeable future, Apple would no longer exercise such a disturbing chokehold on the modes and methods of our resistance.

Apple and Big Tech regularly claim to value freedom of the press, free speech and human rights, but we think it’s telling that none of these companies have acknowledged the positive human rights impacts of OAMA and AICOA—specifically for people living in countries under authoritarian rule, mass surveillance, and government crackdowns. 

Instead, they’ve tried to hijack the narrative around these bills by arguing that breaking up Big Tech “will only help China.” Painting antitrust reform as a threat to national security is a cheap, stale argument <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/big-tech-breaking-will-only-help-china/" target="_self">thrown around by Big Tech</a> to obscure their own complicity in global state violence. These are bad-faith critiques because Big Tech companies will say anything to maintain their monopolistic control over our tools and devices, at any price.

In 2021, antitrust bill sponsor Rep. David Cicilline <a href="https://www.axios.com/2021/09/15/china-antitrust-big-tech-national-security" target="_self">told the press</a> that the “evidence is just the opposite” of what Big Tech argues about the national security impacts of antitrust legislation. He argued that competition drives innovation, and innovation will only boost US national security (as well as the US’s position within the global digital marketplace). We agree. 

If anything, China’s authorities would likely consider these bills threatening to China’s own national security, given that Beijing views marginalized communities and social movements as “national security threats” – and as we’ve argued, these are the groups that would be strengthened by the increased choices and freedoms that OAMA and AICOA create. 

As we’ve <a href="https://applecensorship.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/GreatFire_Letter_to_D_Cicilline-1.pdf" target="_self">told Congress</a>, Apple’s App Store censorship policies constitute a serious abuse of the company’s power and are emblematic of its monopoly status. Although AICOA and OAMA will not solve every problem with global information access, they will absolutely reduce the scale and scope of Big Tech censorship. OAMA and AICOA are worth supporting not only because they’ll even the competitive playing field in the US, but also because they’ll have a net positive impact on human rights across the globe.

Ashley Gjovik, Researcher

Benjamin Ismail, Project Director