7 ms·

Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a me

Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a message about taking responsibility for protecting people's privacy and their data?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dictum 7y ago
> that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another This is exactly what both groups, corporate tax advocates and privacy advocates, are pointing to: the unsustainability or unethicality of the current widespread practices. (Edit: this is getting downvoted quickly, so let me make a disclaimer — I'm not judging the soundness of the arguments of either advocates, just noting that "everybody does it" just restates their arguments.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
the_common_man 7y ago
Some people expect one to be a saint and be totally flawless if one preaches something. They see the preachers as hypocrites otherwise. The classic "but what about ... <another unrelated issue>". In fact, for some, even saints are not good enough. Mother Teresa gets called on her mis-deeds all the time if you point anything good about her. Gandhi gets called on for his personal relationships etc.
- robdachshund 7y ago
  I'd say "personal relationships" is very disingenuous. He was a pedophile...
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  I think if you preach about something you first should clean your own house. For example I would have liked Cook to address the recent keyboard problems openly or discuss the TouchBar that nobody seems to like. I feel like he is opportunistic in the sense that he talks loudly about things that are of less concern to his company and make his competition look bad. That's good business but I don't think he should get much credit for doing it. I am sure he would have no qualms about selling out his users if it fit his business.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You mean by offering extended warranties?
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      Extended warranty is bullshit if you have to waste time going to the Genius Bar and then having your keyboard break after the warranty. That was the minimum possible thing they could do to avoid lawsuits.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        So exactly what are they suppose to do about a product defect except for correct it?
        maxxxxx 7y ago
        Correct it by shipping keyboards that don't break.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - maximente 7y ago
    i'm curious where the line is here - for example, are those supporting action against climate change but who still have a car worthy?
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      I think there is something to be said that you shouldn't be a hypocrite if you speak out publicly about something. For example it really bothers me when people like the U2 singer talk about climate change while flying around in private jets. Or people that glorify/use the military while not having served themselves or anybody in their family. If you preach something you should make the same sacrifices you ask others for.
- arkades 7y ago
  Mother Theresa's saintly work involved providing healthcare for the indigent and overlooked. Her criticisms involve withholding pain relief from those people for religious reasons. That's not an unrelated "whataboutism?" It directly criticizes the action being praised. (I'm not sure why the downvotes. Does this need substantiation? It was directly observed by a major physician, who wrote about it in The Lancet - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)92353-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
enraged_camel 7y ago
Whataboutism.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  "Whataboutism" is intellectually bankrupt. If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy, it doesn't matter who it's from, or how hypocritical the speaker is. It's the message, not the messenger, otherwise it's just the reverse of argument by authority. Ideas should be evaluated for their content.
  - ben509 7y ago
    > If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy I'd like to nail down when accusing someone of hypocrisy is legitimate. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with your larger point, more clarifying.) If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority, sure, pointing out that they can't live up to their own standards casts doubt on that moral authority or the feasibility of those standards. And sometimes people don't realize they're arguing from innate moral authority, so challenging them on that point can identify some unspoken assumptions. (All that said, it's clearer to plainly state, "I think you're implicitly claiming moral authority, and I dispute this," than to ask "what about X.") Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. For example, "Cook told the new Stanford graduates that digital surveillance threatened innovation and would have 'stopped Silicon Valley before it got started.'” This is an argument that the process is innately self-defeating, which doesn't rest on his personal moral authority. In this case, since he's not fundamentally basing his argument on moral authority, saying "what about" is simply an ad hominem tu quoque.
    - stcredzero 7y ago
      If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority That part of their argument can simply be ignored. Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. I never said he was. I was specifically responding to the notion of "whataboutism" itself. That notion itself is philosophically bankrupt. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on who has advanced them. simply an ad hominem tu quoque Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
benologist 7y ago
If Apple want to demand more responsibility from the tech industry why should it only be other companies' transgressions? Apple just a few years ago had to tweak miserable worker conditions to reduce the suicide rate on their production lines, they don't get to dictate the narrative on where the tech industry falls short.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. Apple was reportedly alone in addressing the underlying issues by increasing requirements on Foxconn and other suppliers. Far from being an example of hypocrisy, I think this is a good example of Cook's point.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    > The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. how convenient for apple... if they truly “cared” they would use their clout to improve the conditions regardless if it was a contractor or not (same goes for any large company using contractors)
    - pwinnski 7y ago
      I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. Apple should... make demands on companies with which it has no relationship, and expect those companies to comply? As I stated, Apple did insist on improved conditions at the Foxconn factories where Apple products were made. They audit the factories regularly to ensure Foxconn and other contractors are meetings the standards Apple has set for employee treatment, and report on this information annually, including dropping suppliers who fail audits. It is not clear Apple could do more than they're doing, other than raising the standards even more. Which... maybe they should, but I don't think that's even what you're suggesting.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
westiseast 7y ago
I think because it’s pretty cheap (free) to make inspiring speeches to privileged American students about an esoteric ‘right to be human’. Meanwhile Apple effectively withholds tax from a range of countries who would probably use that to provide basic social services to those in need of them, or runs (through its contractors) factories that withhold basic human rights from staff.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Are you upset that Apple is following the law? Those countries are free to tax Apple however much they want.
  - pixelatedindex 7y ago
    My understanding is that it's the law itself that needs to be fixed. Companies shouldn't be able to get away with billions in tax evasion.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Apple would claim this is legal avoidance, not illegal evasion. Tax law is the acts and statutes that bring it into existence, but it's also the case law that shapes it. EU tax authorities tend to take a light touch approach - they'll tell you that they think you're non-compliant and how they want you to fix it. You can then tell them why they're wrong. They tend not to go to court against huge companies for anything other than blatant violations. So, maybe the law is right, and Apple (etc etc) isn't following it correctly, but the enforcement of that law is wrong.
  - jasonlotito 7y ago
    I mean, Tim Cook is basically coming out against companies that are following the law at least as much as Apple. People just don't like the way the laws are currently setup. Apple even benefited from these lack of legal grounds in the past to get through their own privacy issues[4]. And it's not like Apple is innocent here. They've done illegal things in the past that directly hurt users [1] and it's employees and other people in the industry [2]. They have a long history of violating user trust [3]. This isn't to say they are unique in this. Most large companies deal with these sorts of things. But Apple isn't innocent. They just happen to find an area where they can claim to take the high ground because their business model allows it. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ebooks/apple-colluded-on-e-book-prices-judge-finds-idUSBRE9690GE20130710 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ebooks/apple-collud... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#In-app_purchases_class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#In-app_p... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPad_and_iPhone_privacy_issue_class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPad_and... "The problem facing the plaintiffs is the current state of electronic privacy law, the issue being that there is no national privacy law that provides for compensatory damages for breach of privacy"
frenchman99 7y ago
You probably meant to say "every big business". I don't know many small companies that keep 285 billion away from taxes. Large companies like Apple usually pay way less taxes than smaller ones, precisely because they manage to optimize away way more taxes.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dictum 7y ago

> that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another This is exactly what both groups, corporate tax advocates and privacy advocates, are pointing to: the unsustainability or unethicality of the current widespread practices. (Edit: this is getting downvoted quickly, so let me make a disclaimer — I'm not judging the soundness of the arguments of either advocates, just noting that "everybody does it" just restates their arguments.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

the_common_man 7y ago

Some people expect one to be a saint and be totally flawless if one preaches something. They see the preachers as hypocrites otherwise. The classic "but what about ... <another unrelated issue>". In fact, for some, even saints are not good enough. Mother Teresa gets called on her mis-deeds all the time if you point anything good about her. Gandhi gets called on for his personal relationships etc.

robdachshund 7y ago
I'd say "personal relationships" is very disingenuous. He was a pedophile...
maxxxxx 7y ago
I think if you preach about something you first should clean your own house. For example I would have liked Cook to address the recent keyboard problems openly or discuss the TouchBar that nobody seems to like. I feel like he is opportunistic in the sense that he talks loudly about things that are of less concern to his company and make his competition look bad. That's good business but I don't think he should get much credit for doing it. I am sure he would have no qualms about selling out his users if it fit his business.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You mean by offering extended warranties?
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    Extended warranty is bullshit if you have to waste time going to the Genius Bar and then having your keyboard break after the warranty. That was the minimum possible thing they could do to avoid lawsuits.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      So exactly what are they suppose to do about a product defect except for correct it?
      - maxxxxx 7y ago
        Correct it by shipping keyboards that don't break.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- maximente 7y ago
  i'm curious where the line is here - for example, are those supporting action against climate change but who still have a car worthy?
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    I think there is something to be said that you shouldn't be a hypocrite if you speak out publicly about something. For example it really bothers me when people like the U2 singer talk about climate change while flying around in private jets. Or people that glorify/use the military while not having served themselves or anybody in their family. If you preach something you should make the same sacrifices you ask others for.
arkades 7y ago
Mother Theresa's saintly work involved providing healthcare for the indigent and overlooked. Her criticisms involve withholding pain relief from those people for religious reasons. That's not an unrelated "whataboutism?" It directly criticizes the action being praised. (I'm not sure why the downvotes. Does this need substantiation? It was directly observed by a major physician, who wrote about it in The Lancet - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)92353-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

enraged_camel 7y ago

Whataboutism.

stcredzero 7y ago
"Whataboutism" is intellectually bankrupt. If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy, it doesn't matter who it's from, or how hypocritical the speaker is. It's the message, not the messenger, otherwise it's just the reverse of argument by authority. Ideas should be evaluated for their content.
- ben509 7y ago
  > If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy I'd like to nail down when accusing someone of hypocrisy is legitimate. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with your larger point, more clarifying.) If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority, sure, pointing out that they can't live up to their own standards casts doubt on that moral authority or the feasibility of those standards. And sometimes people don't realize they're arguing from innate moral authority, so challenging them on that point can identify some unspoken assumptions. (All that said, it's clearer to plainly state, "I think you're implicitly claiming moral authority, and I dispute this," than to ask "what about X.") Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. For example, "Cook told the new Stanford graduates that digital surveillance threatened innovation and would have 'stopped Silicon Valley before it got started.'” This is an argument that the process is innately self-defeating, which doesn't rest on his personal moral authority. In this case, since he's not fundamentally basing his argument on moral authority, saying "what about" is simply an ad hominem tu quoque.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority That part of their argument can simply be ignored. Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. I never said he was. I was specifically responding to the notion of "whataboutism" itself. That notion itself is philosophically bankrupt. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on who has advanced them. simply an ad hominem tu quoque Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

benologist 7y ago

If Apple want to demand more responsibility from the tech industry why should it only be other companies' transgressions? Apple just a few years ago had to tweak miserable worker conditions to reduce the suicide rate on their production lines, they don't get to dictate the narrative on where the tech industry falls short.

pwinnski 7y ago
The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. Apple was reportedly alone in addressing the underlying issues by increasing requirements on Foxconn and other suppliers. Far from being an example of hypocrisy, I think this is a good example of Cook's point.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  > The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. how convenient for apple... if they truly “cared” they would use their clout to improve the conditions regardless if it was a contractor or not (same goes for any large company using contractors)
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. Apple should... make demands on companies with which it has no relationship, and expect those companies to comply? As I stated, Apple did insist on improved conditions at the Foxconn factories where Apple products were made. They audit the factories regularly to ensure Foxconn and other contractors are meetings the standards Apple has set for employee treatment, and report on this information annually, including dropping suppliers who fail audits. It is not clear Apple could do more than they're doing, other than raising the standards even more. Which... maybe they should, but I don't think that's even what you're suggesting.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

westiseast 7y ago

I think because it’s pretty cheap (free) to make inspiring speeches to privileged American students about an esoteric ‘right to be human’. Meanwhile Apple effectively withholds tax from a range of countries who would probably use that to provide basic social services to those in need of them, or runs (through its contractors) factories that withhold basic human rights from staff.

kortilla 7y ago
Are you upset that Apple is following the law? Those countries are free to tax Apple however much they want.
- pixelatedindex 7y ago
  My understanding is that it's the law itself that needs to be fixed. Companies shouldn't be able to get away with billions in tax evasion.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Apple would claim this is legal avoidance, not illegal evasion. Tax law is the acts and statutes that bring it into existence, but it's also the case law that shapes it. EU tax authorities tend to take a light touch approach - they'll tell you that they think you're non-compliant and how they want you to fix it. You can then tell them why they're wrong. They tend not to go to court against huge companies for anything other than blatant violations. So, maybe the law is right, and Apple (etc etc) isn't following it correctly, but the enforcement of that law is wrong.
- jasonlotito 7y ago
  I mean, Tim Cook is basically coming out against companies that are following the law at least as much as Apple. People just don't like the way the laws are currently setup. Apple even benefited from these lack of legal grounds in the past to get through their own privacy issues[4]. And it's not like Apple is innocent here. They've done illegal things in the past that directly hurt users [1] and it's employees and other people in the industry [2]. They have a long history of violating user trust [3]. This isn't to say they are unique in this. Most large companies deal with these sorts of things. But Apple isn't innocent. They just happen to find an area where they can claim to take the high ground because their business model allows it. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ebooks/apple-colluded-on-e-book-prices-judge-finds-idUSBRE9690GE20130710 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ebooks/apple-collud... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#In-app_purchases_class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#In-app_p... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPad_and_iPhone_privacy_issue_class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPad_and... "The problem facing the plaintiffs is the current state of electronic privacy law, the issue being that there is no national privacy law that provides for compensatory damages for breach of privacy"

frenchman99 7y ago

You probably meant to say "every big business". I don't know many small companies that keep 285 billion away from taxes. Large companies like Apple usually pay way less taxes than smaller ones, precisely because they manage to optimize away way more taxes.