5 ms·

Is this a news piece or an opinion piece? The article is terrible. Apple has two choices: comply with the laws of China when operating in China or not operat

Is this a news piece or an opinion piece? The article is terrible. Apple has two choices: comply with the laws of China when operating in China or not operate in China. They can refuse to comply on principle, get kicked out of China, and get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty. They can use all available means (none) to fight it. Or they can obey the laws of the country they are operating in. I bet the author would take a dim view of a Chinese company refusing to obey an American law in America.

icelancer 9y ago
>get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty This canard is never an inviolate rule on how large corporations act. Each company acts differently in regards to so-called "fiduciary duty." Not all must maximize all opportunity to make money by sacrificing everything.
sangnoir 9y ago
Large American tech company leaving China is not without precedent: Google left China not too long ago and there were no shareholder lawsuits. "Fiduciary duty" is the hand-wringers' answer to difficult moral questions. It turns out those principles were not principles at all; just artful marketing.
int_19h 9y ago
It's not just about Apple. Apple is still headquartered in US. Thus, it's also a moral quandary for US, because American lawmakers can make it a more stark choice for Apple: they can pass a law saying that no American company can aid and abet human rights violations. Then the choice for Apple would be to operate in China and comply with laws of China, or operate in US and comply with laws of US. Is that too extreme? In this case, perhaps (or perhaps not!), but where is the boundary? We all remember how IBM helped implement Holocaust. I don't think anyone would argue that if someone wanted to do something like that today (say, use machine learning to identify closet atheists and gays in Saudi Arabia?), we'd just say "Oh well, they're just operating under these laws, and who are we to judge? It's all culturally relative anyway." So, at some point we draw a line and say, "no, you can't do this, not if you want to be present in our society". Where is that line? And why shouldn't it lie at authoritarian government censoring political speech?
- TrickyRick 9y ago
  > We all remember how IBM helped implement Holocaust Do you have more details of this? I've never heard about it before.
  - nl 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
    - TrickyRick 9y ago
      Thanks! Added to my reading list
nl 9y ago
They can refuse to comply on principle, get kicked out of China, and get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty. What is it with tech people throwing potential fiduciary duty suits for management decisions around like they are a thing? The suits themselves might be not-unknown, but it is very rare for one to succeed, especially if the company is profitable and the management hasn't broken US law. Legally management has almost complete freedom to make management decisions - the "correct" course for shareholders to dispute that is either to buy more shares and try to get a board seat and fire management, or sell shares. I'm not sure if Apple made the right decision here or not. But this "breach of fiduciary duty" argument is nonsense and it should be stopped.

icelancer 9y ago

>get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty This canard is never an inviolate rule on how large corporations act. Each company acts differently in regards to so-called "fiduciary duty." Not all must maximize all opportunity to make money by sacrificing everything.

sangnoir 9y ago

Large American tech company leaving China is not without precedent: Google left China not too long ago and there were no shareholder lawsuits. "Fiduciary duty" is the hand-wringers' answer to difficult moral questions. It turns out those principles were not principles at all; just artful marketing.

int_19h 9y ago

It's not just about Apple. Apple is still headquartered in US. Thus, it's also a moral quandary for US, because American lawmakers can make it a more stark choice for Apple: they can pass a law saying that no American company can aid and abet human rights violations. Then the choice for Apple would be to operate in China and comply with laws of China, or operate in US and comply with laws of US. Is that too extreme? In this case, perhaps (or perhaps not!), but where is the boundary? We all remember how IBM helped implement Holocaust. I don't think anyone would argue that if someone wanted to do something like that today (say, use machine learning to identify closet atheists and gays in Saudi Arabia?), we'd just say "Oh well, they're just operating under these laws, and who are we to judge? It's all culturally relative anyway." So, at some point we draw a line and say, "no, you can't do this, not if you want to be present in our society". Where is that line? And why shouldn't it lie at authoritarian government censoring political speech?

TrickyRick 9y ago
> We all remember how IBM helped implement Holocaust Do you have more details of this? I've never heard about it before.
- nl 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
  - TrickyRick 9y ago
    Thanks! Added to my reading list

nl 9y ago

They can refuse to comply on principle, get kicked out of China, and get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty. What is it with tech people throwing potential fiduciary duty suits for management decisions around like they are a thing? The suits themselves might be not-unknown, but it is very rare for one to succeed, especially if the company is profitable and the management hasn't broken US law. Legally management has almost complete freedom to make management decisions - the "correct" course for shareholders to dispute that is either to buy more shares and try to get a board seat and fire management, or sell shares. I'm not sure if Apple made the right decision here or not. But this "breach of fiduciary duty" argument is nonsense and it should be stopped.