3 ms·

Parable of the Leopard: Once upon a time there was a leopard who returned from hunting to find that his cub had been killed. He went and asked the baboon “Tel

Parable of the Leopard: Once upon a time there was a leopard who returned from hunting to find that his cub had been killed. He went and asked the baboon “Tell me who killed my cub for I must visit terrible vengeance upon them.“ The baboon replied, “It was the elephants”, whereupon the leopard exclaimed “Surely, you lie, it was the goats.” Immediately afterward, the leopard went out and slaughtered a great many goats to avenge the death of his cub. ——— The tech companies will eloquently criticize the governments of the West concerning human rights secure in the knowledge that no real consequences will come of their criticism. However, the Chinese government is too powerful and the Chinese market too lucrative for tech companies to seriously criticize the Chinese government and risk getting banned in China.

skybrian 8y ago
It seems that by using this analogy that you're making a fairness argument that China should be criticized more, because they're worse, and Western governments shouldn't be criticized, because they're innocent. But that doesn't make sense. In the US, for example, when injustice happens, it's possible to fight it in court. No guarantees, but it can be quite effective. Getting attention in the press is sometimes useful too. Taking advantage of available opportunities to make things better is not "unfair". It's just smart.
- Steltek 8y ago
  That's not how I read that comment at all. RcouF1uZ4gsC is saying that companies are cowards. Speaking out only when it's safe or beneficial for them to do so. "Heartfelt beliefs" as marketing tools.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    "Speaking out only when it's safe or beneficial for them to do so." You say that like it was a bad thing. I'm not sure what "coward" even means when applied to a large organization that has a duty to keep its employees safe. Is hiring someone else to take the risk brave?
siculars 8y ago
Or, say, Saudi Arabia. See Canada.
ufmace 8y ago
As someone libertarian-leaning, what I find disturbing about all this - we all told ourselves that companies in various totalitarian regimes went along with the regime's line because they'd be "disappeared" if they didn't. Here in our country, it seems that murder, jail time, and mysterious "disappearances" are not required. Most companies will happily go along with any regime's censorship plans just to make a few more bucks, not risk losing their market position, or not be a target of a twitter outrage mob. How are we going to maintain a free society if nobody is willing to make any effort at it?
mc32 8y ago
I think a fair amount of that action is PR for internal consumption in order to attract and retain people who are attracted by idealism. The real world is a bit dirtier. In addition, a company will find it difficult to unilaterally hold a moral position because competition, foreign or domestic may not entertain the same ideals and this advantage can result in long term financial and competitive advantage.

skybrian 8y ago

It seems that by using this analogy that you're making a fairness argument that China should be criticized more, because they're worse, and Western governments shouldn't be criticized, because they're innocent. But that doesn't make sense. In the US, for example, when injustice happens, it's possible to fight it in court. No guarantees, but it can be quite effective. Getting attention in the press is sometimes useful too. Taking advantage of available opportunities to make things better is not "unfair". It's just smart.

Steltek 8y ago
That's not how I read that comment at all. RcouF1uZ4gsC is saying that companies are cowards. Speaking out only when it's safe or beneficial for them to do so. "Heartfelt beliefs" as marketing tools.
- skybrian 8y ago
  "Speaking out only when it's safe or beneficial for them to do so." You say that like it was a bad thing. I'm not sure what "coward" even means when applied to a large organization that has a duty to keep its employees safe. Is hiring someone else to take the risk brave?

siculars 8y ago

Or, say, Saudi Arabia. See Canada.

ufmace 8y ago

As someone libertarian-leaning, what I find disturbing about all this - we all told ourselves that companies in various totalitarian regimes went along with the regime's line because they'd be "disappeared" if they didn't. Here in our country, it seems that murder, jail time, and mysterious "disappearances" are not required. Most companies will happily go along with any regime's censorship plans just to make a few more bucks, not risk losing their market position, or not be a target of a twitter outrage mob. How are we going to maintain a free society if nobody is willing to make any effort at it?

mc32 8y ago

I think a fair amount of that action is PR for internal consumption in order to attract and retain people who are attracted by idealism. The real world is a bit dirtier. In addition, a company will find it difficult to unilaterally hold a moral position because competition, foreign or domestic may not entertain the same ideals and this advantage can result in long term financial and competitive advantage.