FWIW, this much should at least be pretty obvious: if you go far far far out of your way to do something that no one required you to do to defend something that pretty clearly leads to a specific result, you are certainly MORE complicit in the results of that action than if you take an action that you are required to do at gunpoint and which only very indirectly and at very low impact causes the result (to the point where I don't even think the analogy of the Nurenberg Defense applies... but, I guess you aren't claiming to understand it well).

Like, I dunno... it just feels like such an ingenuous argument to try to claim that paying taxes -- of which only a very small percentage could possibly be claimed to cause this specific problem, particularly so as this exact same issue happens with iPhones in other countries (such as China, where Apple has become a very clear patsy to the regime and "complicit" barely scratches the surface of their involvement anymore) -- is somehow similar to actively defending the existence of a bottleneck on information and access to software that has time and again been used for censorship and authoritarian control.

Well to start with no one requires anyone to get a job and pay taxes. You could just as well live off food banks and take as much money from government. Knowing that the government does this, one need not give them any money any longer. You could spend down your balance and start eating from the food bank.

It's a pretty active act to go earn money that you then fully know (completely ahead of time) that you are giving to an immoral government. Especially when you know you can draw out of that government instead.

I think what is pretty obvious is that everyone has a story where they're somehow not villains but the guy epsilon more involved in the subject is 100% the villain.

Essentially your argument is “if you don’t like it so much why don’t you move?” which must feel satisfying to trot out but is obviously fatuous.

Well, I'm only taking the notion of complicity to its logical conclusion. I disagree with the premise and a valid way to argue that is to show it reaches absurdity.

It's obvious what's actually happening. It's not so surprising that Apple-haters believe that Apple is complicit in everything. They'd say that about anything Apple. The fact that the argument concludes in 'bottom' is evidence.