12 ms·

> That's why corporations will never help against dictatorship. They may do it if it's convenient but in the end they will prioritize money over everything else

> That's why corporations will never help against dictatorship. They may do it if it's convenient but in the end they will prioritize money over everything else and fall in line with dictatorships. Happened during the Nazi time, it's happening in China now. Well, if you want your government to be powerful enough to enforce laws against corporations, then corporations will not be powerful enough to defy your government. You can't keep your cake and eat it too.

marak830 9y ago
Or perhaps corporations could have a little backbone. Perhaps in their mission statements say that they will prefer to lose profits if it means not trading in a country that performs (x) Edit: (sametmax) I can't seem to reply - I think the chains too long ? Either way: Doesn't that mean we should actually be a little upset ? Look I'm no sjw freaking out over everything, nor do I run around scrwing boycot, but perhaps just a little frustration and some constructive argument may lead someone to a better idea of how to handle/fox/or seeup with something. God's know I don't have an answer, but it does worry me.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  In many places where companies are incorporated, that is likely an illegal decision to make for your company. Unless you can argue that the loss of sales in that jurisdiction will be less than the loss in sales abroad (from loss of consumer trust), you probably can't do it. In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring. In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Legality and morality are different things. Your shareholders may have the right to ask you to fire loads of people, or be a patent troll, but the choice is still yours. But let's be fair, how many individuals, given the choice, would choose making a better world over money ? Probably not event most people in this thread. We are weak creatures.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      > but the choice is still yours. Not really, look up fiduciary duty. When you trade publicly, you have a special form of contract to the shareholding trusts, and in turn to the shareholder. If you breach this, you are liable for damages, and likely to be replaced by somebody who isn't going to make the same mistake. This is a vital part of publicly traded companies.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        You can make the choice upfront, not at the last minute. When entering the chinese market, you know what you're up to.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - gordaco 9y ago
        Fiduciary duty, in the sense you are using it, is a myth (most likely created to justify shameful but profitable actions from corporations). A few sources: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia... https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578437/-The-Myth-Of-The-Fiduciary-Duty-To-Maximize-Shareholder-Value https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578437/-The-Myth... https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... There is such a thing as fiduciary duty, but it's not related to the common usage of public companies needing to maximize profit for shareholders.
        microcolonel 9y ago
        California Corporations Code section 309(a): A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Directors and officers of Apple Inc., incorporated in California, are bound to serve in a manner such that they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders. If the directors and officers of Apple Inc. could determine that their shareholders have an interest in abstaining from the Chinese market for ideological reasons, they could (possibly) make a decision which would not serve the financial interest of the shareholders, but I find it unlikely that their shareholders would consent to that. It's obvious to me that remaining in the Chinese market despite the CCP's suppression of liberties is in the interest of the shareholders. It is a huge market, and the other markets simply don't care enough about this issue to stop buying Apple devices and services on account of this concession to the CCP.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  That's extremely disingenuous. Any profit left on the table will be exploited by the next corporation in line. The loop has to be closed by the people when they get mature enough... and if that's what they want: there are few things more bigot than someone measuring with the west meter other countries' success.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    "If I'm not mugging the grandma, somebody else will" is the most disingenuous excuse of all.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      You're confusing morality and legality, and it seems you're in good company around here. But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution. Still, interestig to see a nice quip at a completely wrong scale/context captivate such a large audience.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution. You are aware that that is just your arbitrary declaration of what you think their role should be, right? I hereby declare that their role is to do just that. What now?
        LoSboccacc 9y ago
        now china boots you out and you lose a huge market for nothing. oh, and the competitor now enjoying the higher margins will use that money to boost their brand globally, so now you've got less margin and more competition.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        How do you know that?
- sametmax 9y ago
  I wish. But... Most people don't have the guts. Why would you expect corporation to have it ? This is the reality of the world, most people don't care about making the moral choice and will choose short term benefits. Getting sick over this is like crying because the sky's color displeases you. Spend your energy trying to improve things at your level. This is all you can do.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    Well, our level includes working towards agreement in the HN community that aiding in censorship is bad.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Fair enough. But I don't think complaining about it is going to help. Pointing it out yes, but the tone need to be more neutral if you want the crowd from this site to take it seriously.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not saying this is the topic to be aggressive in, but neutrality and dispassion aren't always virtues. For example: "I understand why you think apartheid is best. I just personally wish you would reconsider."
        ArialAnemone 9y ago
        Pre-apartheid: SA has working first world infrastructure Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape. :^)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        ArialAnemone 9y ago
        Pre-apartheid: SA has working first world infrastructure Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape. :^)
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Those companies exist, but selection bias already excludes them from the countries in question; e.g. Google.
- threeseed 9y ago
  What's the "x" though in this case ? Censorship ? Because USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc all censor content on the internet. In fact most of the world do to some extent.
  - marak830 9y ago
    X would be anything we disagree with. I'm an Aussie, living in Japan, mostly working for us companies (plus the occasional Indian company), I see many forms of censorship, under many different names. I won't stand up and say I know the solution, but I certainly see the problems.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I don't necessarily blame corporations for this. My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom. A lot of people seem to be doing this. In the end they will fall in line with whoever is running the country. As long as there is money to be made.
- sho 9y ago
  > My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom It's mind-boggling that this even needs to be stated. Of course we should not. Anyone who does needs to step back and seriously re-examine how they look at the world, because this is an intensely false presupposition.
  - jahaja 9y ago
    It's not that strange. The free market/market economy is used more or less as a synonym, albeit incorrectly imo, for freedom. Seemingly to try to make it true by repetition. Look at any kind of right-wing politician whose random short bio contains "Loves freedom!" or similar. In practice it translates to "loves the market economy and property rights etc", while the same person seldom sympathize with ideas of a living wage, lowering working hours etc.
- jliptzin 9y ago
  Who is doing that? Corporations exist only to generate profit for their shareholders and they aren't shy about admitting that
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    Anyone who takes part in proprietary products with network effects does that?
  - sievebrain 9y ago
    It's not the case. Show me the law that says that. You can't be there isn't one - it's perfectly possible for companies to take moral stands and many do. Consider that both Google and Facebook have no presence in China.
sho 9y ago
You might not like the (totally valid) point this comment makes but that doesn't stop it being true. Stop with the downvotes.
- icebraining 9y ago
  No, it's a false dichotomy. People and corporations can contest laws without making them impossible to enforce.
StreamBright 9y ago
This is the same reason why ~70% of US legislation is for benefits of corporations. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
oelmekki 9y ago
Not sure why this is downvoted. We're in a era when the biggest companies have the same means than small to medium countries, this remark is perfectly valid.
ungzd 9y ago
Governments don't force Apple to allow installing apps only from App Store, it's their own decision.

marak830 9y ago

Or perhaps corporations could have a little backbone. Perhaps in their mission statements say that they will prefer to lose profits if it means not trading in a country that performs (x) Edit: (sametmax) I can't seem to reply - I think the chains too long ? Either way: Doesn't that mean we should actually be a little upset ? Look I'm no sjw freaking out over everything, nor do I run around scrwing boycot, but perhaps just a little frustration and some constructive argument may lead someone to a better idea of how to handle/fox/or seeup with something. God's know I don't have an answer, but it does worry me.

microcolonel 9y ago
In many places where companies are incorporated, that is likely an illegal decision to make for your company. Unless you can argue that the loss of sales in that jurisdiction will be less than the loss in sales abroad (from loss of consumer trust), you probably can't do it. In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring. In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Legality and morality are different things. Your shareholders may have the right to ask you to fire loads of people, or be a patent troll, but the choice is still yours. But let's be fair, how many individuals, given the choice, would choose making a better world over money ? Probably not event most people in this thread. We are weak creatures.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > but the choice is still yours. Not really, look up fiduciary duty. When you trade publicly, you have a special form of contract to the shareholding trusts, and in turn to the shareholder. If you breach this, you are liable for damages, and likely to be replaced by somebody who isn't going to make the same mistake. This is a vital part of publicly traded companies.
    - sametmax 9y ago
      You can make the choice upfront, not at the last minute. When entering the chinese market, you know what you're up to.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - gordaco 9y ago
      Fiduciary duty, in the sense you are using it, is a myth (most likely created to justify shameful but profitable actions from corporations). A few sources: https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia... https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578437/-The-Myth-Of-The-Fiduciary-Duty-To-Maximize-Shareholder-Value https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578437/-The-Myth... https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... There is such a thing as fiduciary duty, but it's not related to the common usage of public companies needing to maximize profit for shareholders.
      - microcolonel 9y ago
        California Corporations Code section 309(a): A director shall perform the duties of a director, including duties as a member of any committee of the board upon which the director may serve, in good faith, in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Directors and officers of Apple Inc., incorporated in California, are bound to serve in a manner such that they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders. If the directors and officers of Apple Inc. could determine that their shareholders have an interest in abstaining from the Chinese market for ideological reasons, they could (possibly) make a decision which would not serve the financial interest of the shareholders, but I find it unlikely that their shareholders would consent to that. It's obvious to me that remaining in the Chinese market despite the CCP's suppression of liberties is in the interest of the shareholders. It is a huge market, and the other markets simply don't care enough about this issue to stop buying Apple devices and services on account of this concession to the CCP.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
That's extremely disingenuous. Any profit left on the table will be exploited by the next corporation in line. The loop has to be closed by the people when they get mature enough... and if that's what they want: there are few things more bigot than someone measuring with the west meter other countries' success.
- sametmax 9y ago
  "If I'm not mugging the grandma, somebody else will" is the most disingenuous excuse of all.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    You're confusing morality and legality, and it seems you're in good company around here. But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution. Still, interestig to see a nice quip at a completely wrong scale/context captivate such a large audience.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > But it's not the role of corporate to white knighting a country cultural revolution. You are aware that that is just your arbitrary declaration of what you think their role should be, right? I hereby declare that their role is to do just that. What now?
      - LoSboccacc 9y ago
        now china boots you out and you lose a huge market for nothing. oh, and the competitor now enjoying the higher margins will use that money to boost their brand globally, so now you've got less margin and more competition.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        How do you know that?
sametmax 9y ago
I wish. But... Most people don't have the guts. Why would you expect corporation to have it ? This is the reality of the world, most people don't care about making the moral choice and will choose short term benefits. Getting sick over this is like crying because the sky's color displeases you. Spend your energy trying to improve things at your level. This is all you can do.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Well, our level includes working towards agreement in the HN community that aiding in censorship is bad.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Fair enough. But I don't think complaining about it is going to help. Pointing it out yes, but the tone need to be more neutral if you want the crowd from this site to take it seriously.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I'm not saying this is the topic to be aggressive in, but neutrality and dispassion aren't always virtues. For example: "I understand why you think apartheid is best. I just personally wish you would reconsider."
      - ArialAnemone 9y ago
        Pre-apartheid: SA has working first world infrastructure Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape. :^)
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - ArialAnemone 9y ago
        Pre-apartheid: SA has working first world infrastructure Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape. :^)
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Those companies exist, but selection bias already excludes them from the countries in question; e.g. Google.
threeseed 9y ago
What's the "x" though in this case ? Censorship ? Because USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc all censor content on the internet. In fact most of the world do to some extent.
- marak830 9y ago
  X would be anything we disagree with. I'm an Aussie, living in Japan, mostly working for us companies (plus the occasional Indian company), I see many forms of censorship, under many different names. I won't stand up and say I know the solution, but I certainly see the problems.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I don't necessarily blame corporations for this. My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom. A lot of people seem to be doing this. In the end they will fall in line with whoever is running the country. As long as there is money to be made.

sho 9y ago
> My point is that we shouldn't look at corporations as agents for freedom It's mind-boggling that this even needs to be stated. Of course we should not. Anyone who does needs to step back and seriously re-examine how they look at the world, because this is an intensely false presupposition.
- jahaja 9y ago
  It's not that strange. The free market/market economy is used more or less as a synonym, albeit incorrectly imo, for freedom. Seemingly to try to make it true by repetition. Look at any kind of right-wing politician whose random short bio contains "Loves freedom!" or similar. In practice it translates to "loves the market economy and property rights etc", while the same person seldom sympathize with ideas of a living wage, lowering working hours etc.
jliptzin 9y ago
Who is doing that? Corporations exist only to generate profit for their shareholders and they aren't shy about admitting that
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  Anyone who takes part in proprietary products with network effects does that?
- sievebrain 9y ago
  It's not the case. Show me the law that says that. You can't be there isn't one - it's perfectly possible for companies to take moral stands and many do. Consider that both Google and Facebook have no presence in China.

sho 9y ago

You might not like the (totally valid) point this comment makes but that doesn't stop it being true. Stop with the downvotes.

icebraining 9y ago
No, it's a false dichotomy. People and corporations can contest laws without making them impossible to enforce.

StreamBright 9y ago

This is the same reason why ~70% of US legislation is for benefits of corporations. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

oelmekki 9y ago

Not sure why this is downvoted. We're in a era when the biggest companies have the same means than small to medium countries, this remark is perfectly valid.

ungzd 9y ago

Governments don't force Apple to allow installing apps only from App Store, it's their own decision.