27 ms·

it's not their job to do it. It's nobody's job to do it. They still potentially can fix the problem. Wouldn't it be great if they used their influence to help

by rtpg 9y ago

it's not their job to do it. It's nobody's job to do it. They still potentially can fix the problem. Wouldn't it be great if they used their influence to help fix things? I agree that there's a "choose your battles" aspect to this. Considering what Apple did with the San Bernandino case, this seems (ideologically) right, but the potential losses are pretty high.

cbhl 9y ago
Google and Facebook took this stance and look where it got us? China just made their own bloody search engine and social network. We need to stop looking to corporations as doing the jobs our government should be doing.
- virtuabhi 9y ago
  Let us keep passing the buck... We need to stop looking to governments as doing the jobs United Nations should be doing. "Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does."
  - Clubber 9y ago
    That's a good point but China is 1 of 5 nations in the UN with veto power.
- chrischen 9y ago
  I don’t think facebook took any stance. Chinese gov’t just recognized how much data has on its users.
mikestew 9y ago
It's nobody's job to do it. What I read from that is that you do not think that it is a more appropriate role for, say, the U. S. government. If that is the case, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My POV is that to a large extent the U.s government has that leeway because they don't have financial incentives/disincentives to steer their decisions (this falls apart when viewed in a larger economic sense, but bear with me). Instead, the government makes laws, decrees, and treaties that fit within a worldview of what benefits the country as a whole, and to some extent to cajole other countries who might have a different worldview (Iran or Russia, for example). Or put another way, we leave it to the government to represent our moral, ethical and economic views of how the world should work. Whereas Apple should represent a different view: the desires of those that own stock with the symbol "AAPL", and their desire to make money (where are the "fiduciary obligation" folks when you need them?) If AAPL happens to take a stand I agree with, hurray, I'll buy more of their products and probably more of their stock. If they mistreat workers, I'll dig in and find out if I still feel comfortable giving them my monetary support (personally, no worse than others, maybe a little better). But what I don't expect from AAPL is for them to instigate "regime change" or whatever else it is the NYT is expecting them to do. Anyway, that turned out longer than I wanted, but that's where I'm coming from.
- maus42 9y ago
  Sure, if you are an US citizen, you can argue that it should be US government's job to represent your ideals in the wider world. But your government is not the only party responsible for representing your moral or political positions in the world. For example, the US government collectively is not particularly famous for 100% morally upstanding behavior. Granted, the US behaves often better than other great powers, and certainly it represents many ideals of democracy and liberty more than other contending powers. But consider the mess that was Iran-Contra affair or the various regimes ranging from unsavory authoritarianism to sheer terrorism (with "disappearances" and torture) CIA supported in Latin America in the name of anti-communism. (God forbid someone propose an idea of land reform in South America or advancing workers' and natives' rights against UFC, despite that's how numerous European countries avoided communism.) Did these actions (and various other questionable shenanigans the US government has been partial to) represent your ethical positions? It's everyone's job to do it, and what any government does is only part of that. For example, you mentioned AAPL stock owners. According to any sane ethical system, the moral duty of any individual CEO or a member of board or stock owner as a human person with rights and corresponding duties to act ethically overrides their financial or legal duty to maximize corporate profits.
  - thundergolfer 9y ago
    Spot on. The US Government is supposed to represent the people, and thus must uphold that people's values. The US government is a moral agent. A person is a moral agent. Though many here are happy to concede the reality that Apple is comprised of individuals and that it exists as an organisation as a part of society, and just view it as a profit-maximising entity. This is perverse. A corporation is a moral agent, and when it's morality conflicts with it's profits, morality should win. We'd expect nothing less of literally everybody/everything else.
    - maus42 9y ago
      >A corporation is a moral agent I otherwise agree, but I don't know if Apple is a moral agent - that discussion will into quite complex philosophical issues. But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent.
taneq 9y ago
Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.
- rtpg 9y ago
  It would be hypocritical to say someone is wrong while, on the same point, say someone else is right (despite the actions being the same). It's not hypocritical to say someone is wrong without mentioning all the other people are wrong. You can't list literally every bad thing that happens in every press release, and you can scope criticism.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    It's hypocritical for the US to say China's government is wrong because the US government doesn't a lot of nasty things as well.
    - chii 9y ago
      But they have to be the same nasty for it to be considered hypocritical.
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change. Uh, did you miss the whole iPhone/FBI thing here. Not only did many of us in the US (and virtually all of us on HN) accept them telling us that our government was wrong and should change, we relished it! We were glad someone finally stood up to the US government and its surveillance overreach. Could it be that many, perhaps most, Chinese would think the same way? I suspect so, given how many of them use VPNs there.

by rtpg 9y ago

cbhl 9y ago

Google and Facebook took this stance and look where it got us? China just made their own bloody search engine and social network. We need to stop looking to corporations as doing the jobs our government should be doing.

virtuabhi 9y ago
Let us keep passing the buck... We need to stop looking to governments as doing the jobs United Nations should be doing. "Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does."
- Clubber 9y ago
  That's a good point but China is 1 of 5 nations in the UN with veto power.
chrischen 9y ago
I don’t think facebook took any stance. Chinese gov’t just recognized how much data has on its users.

mikestew 9y ago

It's nobody's job to do it. What I read from that is that you do not think that it is a more appropriate role for, say, the U. S. government. If that is the case, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. My POV is that to a large extent the U.s government has that leeway because they don't have financial incentives/disincentives to steer their decisions (this falls apart when viewed in a larger economic sense, but bear with me). Instead, the government makes laws, decrees, and treaties that fit within a worldview of what benefits the country as a whole, and to some extent to cajole other countries who might have a different worldview (Iran or Russia, for example). Or put another way, we leave it to the government to represent our moral, ethical and economic views of how the world should work. Whereas Apple should represent a different view: the desires of those that own stock with the symbol "AAPL", and their desire to make money (where are the "fiduciary obligation" folks when you need them?) If AAPL happens to take a stand I agree with, hurray, I'll buy more of their products and probably more of their stock. If they mistreat workers, I'll dig in and find out if I still feel comfortable giving them my monetary support (personally, no worse than others, maybe a little better). But what I don't expect from AAPL is for them to instigate "regime change" or whatever else it is the NYT is expecting them to do. Anyway, that turned out longer than I wanted, but that's where I'm coming from.

maus42 9y ago
Sure, if you are an US citizen, you can argue that it should be US government's job to represent your ideals in the wider world. But your government is not the only party responsible for representing your moral or political positions in the world. For example, the US government collectively is not particularly famous for 100% morally upstanding behavior. Granted, the US behaves often better than other great powers, and certainly it represents many ideals of democracy and liberty more than other contending powers. But consider the mess that was Iran-Contra affair or the various regimes ranging from unsavory authoritarianism to sheer terrorism (with "disappearances" and torture) CIA supported in Latin America in the name of anti-communism. (God forbid someone propose an idea of land reform in South America or advancing workers' and natives' rights against UFC, despite that's how numerous European countries avoided communism.) Did these actions (and various other questionable shenanigans the US government has been partial to) represent your ethical positions? It's everyone's job to do it, and what any government does is only part of that. For example, you mentioned AAPL stock owners. According to any sane ethical system, the moral duty of any individual CEO or a member of board or stock owner as a human person with rights and corresponding duties to act ethically overrides their financial or legal duty to maximize corporate profits.
- thundergolfer 9y ago
  Spot on. The US Government is supposed to represent the people, and thus must uphold that people's values. The US government is a moral agent. A person is a moral agent. Though many here are happy to concede the reality that Apple is comprised of individuals and that it exists as an organisation as a part of society, and just view it as a profit-maximising entity. This is perverse. A corporation is a moral agent, and when it's morality conflicts with it's profits, morality should win. We'd expect nothing less of literally everybody/everything else.
  - maus42 9y ago
    >A corporation is a moral agent I otherwise agree, but I don't know if Apple is a moral agent - that discussion will into quite complex philosophical issues. But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent.

taneq 9y ago

Depending on your viewpoint, it's not even a problem. Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change.

rtpg 9y ago
It would be hypocritical to say someone is wrong while, on the same point, say someone else is right (despite the actions being the same). It's not hypocritical to say someone is wrong without mentioning all the other people are wrong. You can't list literally every bad thing that happens in every press release, and you can scope criticism.
- Clubber 9y ago
  It's hypocritical for the US to say China's government is wrong because the US government doesn't a lot of nasty things as well.
  - chii 9y ago
    But they have to be the same nasty for it to be considered hypocritical.
jnbiche 9y ago
> Telling China that their government is objectively wrong and should do things differently is pretty hypocritical unless we'd accept them telling us that our respective governments are wrong and should change. Uh, did you miss the whole iPhone/FBI thing here. Not only did many of us in the US (and virtually all of us on HN) accept them telling us that our government was wrong and should change, we relished it! We were glad someone finally stood up to the US government and its surveillance overreach. Could it be that many, perhaps most, Chinese would think the same way? I suspect so, given how many of them use VPNs there.