> The communication which the govt wants to censor gets censored

Only if social dynamics evaluate as a zero sum game. Which is the exception, not the rule.

Law making is really a modelling exercise. The proof of the validity of a model is measured via the success of it's implementation. The extent of that success is a function of the ability of an authority to enforce those rules.

At surface level, centralizing mass media into a handful of channels - whether it's public broadcasting or market dominance through a single private actor - seems like a boon for authoritarians when it comes to censorship. But what censorship really accomplishes is just stripping away the convenience with which undesirable information is spread. It doesn't necessarily strip the wholesale spread of information.

History is rife with examples. In the 20th century there were clandestine newspapers (French newspaper La Libération for example) and pamphlets, or listening in on the BBC via longwave. In modern times, there's sneakernets, streetnets (Cuba, even North Korea), datacasting,... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_circumvent...)

When a big corporation doesn't play ball and seizes operating in a country, it only moves the needle in one direction, but never quite entirely to the end.

"Someone else will do it if I don't so I might as well get paid for assisting evil."

It's a common enough point of view. I disagree with it myself. There's plenty to discuss about just how evil it has to be before you can't live with it anymore. Those are interesting discussion. Binary discussions based on purity are usually pretty dull.

So do you also agree with sanctions against the population? In a sense, censorship is an inaction for a communications company, not a positive act of assistance. Apple doesn't get paid for actually censoring anything. They get paid for whatever legal services they can still sell to innocent civilians. Suppose they were selling food and the govt insists they refuse to sell food to an opposition group. Taking the high road and refusing to play ball is to starve everyone, not just the people the govt wants to starve.

> Apple doesn't get paid for actually censoring anything.

Yep they do. They don't do it they don't get paid. They decide to do it, they get paid. They can count the difference in revenue and profit from those two alternatives. It is literally one of the things they are getting paid to do. Can you live with doing that for monetary profit? You can certainly make arguments both ways.

This is not "sanctions against a population." Sanctions against a population is something more like blockading medical aid to Iraq through law for years prior to the invasion. Now Iran. It's certainly worthwhile weighing up the ethics of that, and there are dead bodies to count and trade off that decision, which obviously makes it a pretty unpleasant thing to consider, but that isn't what is under discussion here.

If apple refuse to do it, someone else will, to be sure. That's not a reason that should influence whether you can live with doing it or whether it's something you refuse.

> Yep they do. They don't do it they don't get paid. They decide to do it, they get paid. They can count the difference in revenue and profit from those two alternatives. I

I happily censor everything the government demands. Yet I do not get paid anything. Hence your logic is proven to be false. Specifically you have made a fallacy of omission.

Your perspective on what a sanction is indeed is too narrow to be very relevant. But you didn't answer, anyway. I guess you're against them as long as you can make the choice easy for yourself? But now stop dancing around and consider sanctions which restrict other forms of trade besides medical supplies.