4 ms·

That's the best part, there is no correct choice. Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this, but putting them in a position of having t

That's the best part, there is no correct choice. Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this, but putting them in a position of having to choose between looking like Chinese stooges or getting banned from China will break their minds.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
I don't think it will, really, because as a Chinese stooge with access to Chinese market, you have ample money to spend on PR & marketing that makes you not look like a Chinese stooge.
- HenryBemis 7y ago
  USA population is close to 330m. I was reading that NBA has 500m "followers" (I will translate it to consumers). Assuming that only half the US population follows (consumes, pays) for NBA related products, then Chinese market is every NBA official's wet dream. Unless this becomes a binary choice (dictatorship Vs freedom) all the money making sharks (FIFA, NBA, etc) will pretend that they "were not aware of such events taking place in China/do not comment on internal affairs of other sovereign nations" as long as the money rolls in. I was glad to see earlier on CNN a 'super' writing "NBA Commissioner: we are no apologizing..." But the first 24h the reactions went from not existing to laughable. Good to see that freedom is more important than revenue.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >Assuming that only half the US population follows (consumes, pays) for NBA related products I would say at most, 10% of the US consumes/pays for NBA related products. NBA finals are estimated to have 15M viewers last year, so even doubling that you're only getting to 10%.
ianleeclark 7y ago
> Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this It sure doesn't seem to me that bending to the will of an authoritarian state is "sitting in the moral grey area." They've made their decision.
- esailija 7y ago
  authoritarian state is a tautology
  - shantly 7y ago
    It’s not. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian
    - esailija 7y ago
      Yes, if laws were optional then they would cease to be laws. Laws subordinate individual freedom and every state has laws. Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning.
      - shantly 7y ago
        There's a distinction here, or we wouldn't bother to have the word. People find it useful. You're in the minority if you don't, which is fine, but you're wrong about common use of the word, as recorded in a typical dictionary. > Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning. Well, sort of. Human systems are messy and insisting that any term applied to them be absolutely true or else invalid won't get you far. That some governments would have more success and ease modifying the terms of their own constitution wildly counter to the will or interests of those they rule than others can easily be seen as true, I think, and is related to the set of norms and ideals held by those who believe they ought justly and actually to have a say in how the government runs, and to who sees themselves as being legitimately entitled to same, for that matter (i.e. do most expect that, or only some minority), and furthermore both of those are influenced by the constitution, laws, and actual historical practices of the state they're operating under. Technically possible matters less than what is practical and likely when it comes to classifying human systems, as they're hard to pick apart and take one element at a time what with all the feedback and mutual influence involved.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

I don't think it will, really, because as a Chinese stooge with access to Chinese market, you have ample money to spend on PR & marketing that makes you not look like a Chinese stooge.

HenryBemis 7y ago
USA population is close to 330m. I was reading that NBA has 500m "followers" (I will translate it to consumers). Assuming that only half the US population follows (consumes, pays) for NBA related products, then Chinese market is every NBA official's wet dream. Unless this becomes a binary choice (dictatorship Vs freedom) all the money making sharks (FIFA, NBA, etc) will pretend that they "were not aware of such events taking place in China/do not comment on internal affairs of other sovereign nations" as long as the money rolls in. I was glad to see earlier on CNN a 'super' writing "NBA Commissioner: we are no apologizing..." But the first 24h the reactions went from not existing to laughable. Good to see that freedom is more important than revenue.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >Assuming that only half the US population follows (consumes, pays) for NBA related products I would say at most, 10% of the US consumes/pays for NBA related products. NBA finals are estimated to have 15M viewers last year, so even doubling that you're only getting to 10%.

ianleeclark 7y ago

> Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this It sure doesn't seem to me that bending to the will of an authoritarian state is "sitting in the moral grey area." They've made their decision.

esailija 7y ago
authoritarian state is a tautology
- shantly 7y ago
  It’s not. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authoritarian
  - esailija 7y ago
    Yes, if laws were optional then they would cease to be laws. Laws subordinate individual freedom and every state has laws. Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning.
    - shantly 7y ago
      There's a distinction here, or we wouldn't bother to have the word. People find it useful. You're in the minority if you don't, which is fine, but you're wrong about common use of the word, as recorded in a typical dictionary. > Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning. Well, sort of. Human systems are messy and insisting that any term applied to them be absolutely true or else invalid won't get you far. That some governments would have more success and ease modifying the terms of their own constitution wildly counter to the will or interests of those they rule than others can easily be seen as true, I think, and is related to the set of norms and ideals held by those who believe they ought justly and actually to have a say in how the government runs, and to who sees themselves as being legitimately entitled to same, for that matter (i.e. do most expect that, or only some minority), and furthermore both of those are influenced by the constitution, laws, and actual historical practices of the state they're operating under. Technically possible matters less than what is practical and likely when it comes to classifying human systems, as they're hard to pick apart and take one element at a time what with all the feedback and mutual influence involved.