4 ms·

That’s not how this works. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world, and saying “just don’t spend money there” is a bit reductionist and trivialize

That’s not how this works. Apple is one of the wealthiest companies in the world, and saying “just don’t spend money there” is a bit reductionist and trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. You need to fight fire with fire: governments of the world (especially the US government) need to create laws that restrict and punish this kind of behavior. Otherwise, I sincerely doubt Apple’s going to even notice the missing couple hundred thousand dollars of revenue because of principled “voting with your wallet”.

mmastrac 7y ago
Homegrown sentiment against Apple will very quickly turn the company in the right direction. None of these large companies can afford to completely neglect their home territories.
- journalctl 7y ago
  Most people don’t actually care about this issue, though. Whether or not they should is a different debate, but at the end of the day, people want a solid laptop that works, and even if people did care, I don’t blame them for valuing more short-term things like “I need a MacBook for my job” vs. more long-term, abstract things like “we shouldn’t import autocratic Chinese censorship”. We can have a world where companies produce good products and act in accordance with democratic, liberal ideology.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
hi5eyes 7y ago
> You need to fight fire with fire: governments of the world (especially the US government) need to create laws that restrict and punish this kind of behavior. Otherwise, I sincerely doubt Apple’s going to even notice the missing couple hundred thousand dollars of revenue because of principled “voting with your wallet”. and as we all know, governments are becoming a thing of the past. too slow too bad. I welcome our technotopia overlords
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
But getting corporations to have more power than nations is the raison d'être of globalisation. Winding it back won't be easy.
jm4 7y ago
How does that play out? The US and China would pass contradictory laws and then companies would have to choose which to follow. They will follow the money and we may not like the result.
- arbitrary_name 7y ago
  That we cant use Apple phones? Boo fucking hoo.
  - Aunche 7y ago
    If Apple decides to pull out of China and Hong Kong, that would be a huge boost to Chinese phone manufacturers.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
There is no reason you can't do both. Yes, this does mean not buying next year's iPhone model, suck it up or stop pretending you care so much.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
api 7y ago
> trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. But they don't have more power than nation states. Last I checked nation states had guns, and guns are still very much the real source of all power in this world. Apple has a lot of money. That makes them economically dependent on a larger surface area of not only nation states but other corporations. In a way it gives them less power. A more personal analogy: a regular old Joe or Jane can say anything they want on social media with little fear of anything bad happening because their economic dependency surface area is small. A corporate CEO must watch what they say much more carefully, as Elon Musk learned with his various stupid tweets. A government official on the other hand, like Trump, can say asinine provocative things all day with little consequence because he's in a high position in an organization with guns. Xi Jinpeng is even more immune as his government has fewer checks and balances. In terms of practical freedom of speech and political/social action, being rich outside the protection of the state is probably the least powerful position you can be in.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > In terms of practical freedom of speech and political/social action, being rich outside the protection of the state is probably the least powerful position you can be in. The wealthy can hire armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and in some countries mercenaries. A regular old Joe can say anything, sure, but if they're in the wrong country when they do they might end up in prison or just disappear. If you're rich and "economically dependent" the worst that generally happens is your ROI goes down. The horror!
Krasnol 7y ago
Somehow I think this is exactly how it works. Apples marketing claim in the recent years has been users privacy concerns. So why shouldn't such a move be also just as relevant as the marketing in the recent years? I find it interesting how the blame shifting works these days. While with Blizzard, all the hate goes to Blizzard, with Apple there seem to be at least two fronts. One blaming Apple, the other aiming away from them towards China.
ta20938 7y ago
The US government is currently rather busy attempting to stave off what looks more and more like a coup. That the tech industry has been a primary player in enabling this. Each and every one of us needs to have a nice long think about our own ethics and what we're willing to support.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  How is a legal process a coup? For readers which aren't sure of the definition of coup, "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." I don't see how an impeachment inquiry (even if legally a bit vague) as "violent", "sudden", or "illegal", nor is it a seizure of power, since it is just an inquiry. If you want to argue that ordering witnesses for investigations without first declaring a formal vote on an impeachment inquiry is illegal, you won't find the Constitution or CRS reports state that a vote must be held for such orders to be valid.
- Mc_Big_G 7y ago
  >Each and every one of us needs to have a nice long think about our own ethics and what we're willing to support. Funny statement coming from someone who thinks the impeachment of Trump is a "coup". Do you support pussy grabbing, kids in cages, abandoning our allies, allowing foreign governments to assassinate resident journalists, a constant stream of lies and gas lighting from the President, doing nothing about foreign interference in our elections, the purchase of political ads spouting outright lies, conflicts of interest in President's businesses, rolling back civil and environmental protections, etc... You should have a nice long think about your own ethics and what you're willing to support, hypocrite.
root_axis 7y ago
> “just don’t spend money there” is a bit reductionist and trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. You're totally mistaken if you believe that boycotts and the like aren't taken seriously by big companies, especially companies like Apple where the brand is more important than the product. Of course, it all depends on the size of the boycott, but it doesn't have to cost them millions to become a major problem.
- decoyworker 7y ago
  They are seeking new revenue in the Chinese market. To them they see a minuscule boycott in the US as the cost of gaining that market- net positive.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Things aren't so black and white behind the scenes. Whether or not a boycott is "minuscule" isn't measured in dollars, it's how the brand is perceived and the second-order effects that perception creates.
  - SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
    China, through its own behavior in situations like these, makes its own market less attractive for companies and investors, though. You'd have to be crazy to see what is going on right now, and go all-in in with the market in China. The arbitrary power of the CPC over market access is a huge liability. Big companies may still want to do business in China, but they need stronger footholds in other markets to offset the risk.
    - decoyworker 7y ago
      That's true. The Chinese government could just decide they do not like you and you have no recourse whatsoever. Good point.
- m3kw9 7y ago
  Nobody is gonna boycott something they use daily and depend on
rayalez 7y ago
For an amazing and concise explanation of why “just don’t spend money there” strategy is very difficult, check out this post by Scott Alexander: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (search for sections 2.3 and 2.3.1)
tnel77 7y ago
I am almost always against more government regulation and firmly believe in the power of our collective wallets. That being said, I try to hear out other viewpoints because it’s entirely possible that I am wrong. So, tell me, what law would fix this situation? A law that forces tech corporations to allow free speech? Or a law that forces companies to put ethics before profits? I genuinely don’t know what law we could make that would address the issue while also being fair and enforceable. It seems a lot easier to get the people to rally behind a boycott than to get legislators to have a good idea and actually act upon it.
smsm42 7y ago
Apple is one of the wealthiest because people buy their products. No other reason. Before people started buying iphones, Apple had near to zero power. If they stop doing that, they'd not have power to restrict people's choices again. Hong Kong people are risking lives for freedom. Are US people ready to risk not having the latest greatest iphone, or maybe they don't need that damn freedom that much? And we already see what government with laws created to restrict and punish behavior can do. Of course, our government will never do that, we know they'd always use their immense powers responsibly and for the good of the people, right? Right?!
drak0n1c 7y ago
There are lawmakers - both GOP and Democrat - who are in favor of recognizing social and app platforms as public squares. Such regulation would limit arbitrary corporate deplatforming.

mmastrac 7y ago

Homegrown sentiment against Apple will very quickly turn the company in the right direction. None of these large companies can afford to completely neglect their home territories.

journalctl 7y ago
Most people don’t actually care about this issue, though. Whether or not they should is a different debate, but at the end of the day, people want a solid laptop that works, and even if people did care, I don’t blame them for valuing more short-term things like “I need a MacBook for my job” vs. more long-term, abstract things like “we shouldn’t import autocratic Chinese censorship”. We can have a world where companies produce good products and act in accordance with democratic, liberal ideology.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

hi5eyes 7y ago

> You need to fight fire with fire: governments of the world (especially the US government) need to create laws that restrict and punish this kind of behavior. Otherwise, I sincerely doubt Apple’s going to even notice the missing couple hundred thousand dollars of revenue because of principled “voting with your wallet”. and as we all know, governments are becoming a thing of the past. too slow too bad. I welcome our technotopia overlords

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

But getting corporations to have more power than nations is the raison d'être of globalisation. Winding it back won't be easy.

jm4 7y ago

How does that play out? The US and China would pass contradictory laws and then companies would have to choose which to follow. They will follow the money and we may not like the result.

arbitrary_name 7y ago
That we cant use Apple phones? Boo fucking hoo.
- Aunche 7y ago
  If Apple decides to pull out of China and Hong Kong, that would be a huge boost to Chinese phone manufacturers.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

There is no reason you can't do both. Yes, this does mean not buying next year's iPhone model, suck it up or stop pretending you care so much.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

api 7y ago

> trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. But they don't have more power than nation states. Last I checked nation states had guns, and guns are still very much the real source of all power in this world. Apple has a lot of money. That makes them economically dependent on a larger surface area of not only nation states but other corporations. In a way it gives them less power. A more personal analogy: a regular old Joe or Jane can say anything they want on social media with little fear of anything bad happening because their economic dependency surface area is small. A corporate CEO must watch what they say much more carefully, as Elon Musk learned with his various stupid tweets. A government official on the other hand, like Trump, can say asinine provocative things all day with little consequence because he's in a high position in an organization with guns. Xi Jinpeng is even more immune as his government has fewer checks and balances. In terms of practical freedom of speech and political/social action, being rich outside the protection of the state is probably the least powerful position you can be in.

AlexandrB 7y ago
> In terms of practical freedom of speech and political/social action, being rich outside the protection of the state is probably the least powerful position you can be in. The wealthy can hire armies of lobbyists, lawyers, and in some countries mercenaries. A regular old Joe can say anything, sure, but if they're in the wrong country when they do they might end up in prison or just disappear. If you're rich and "economically dependent" the worst that generally happens is your ROI goes down. The horror!

Krasnol 7y ago

Somehow I think this is exactly how it works. Apples marketing claim in the recent years has been users privacy concerns. So why shouldn't such a move be also just as relevant as the marketing in the recent years? I find it interesting how the blame shifting works these days. While with Blizzard, all the hate goes to Blizzard, with Apple there seem to be at least two fronts. One blaming Apple, the other aiming away from them towards China.

ta20938 7y ago

The US government is currently rather busy attempting to stave off what looks more and more like a coup. That the tech industry has been a primary player in enabling this. Each and every one of us needs to have a nice long think about our own ethics and what we're willing to support.

whatisthiseven 7y ago
How is a legal process a coup? For readers which aren't sure of the definition of coup, "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." I don't see how an impeachment inquiry (even if legally a bit vague) as "violent", "sudden", or "illegal", nor is it a seizure of power, since it is just an inquiry. If you want to argue that ordering witnesses for investigations without first declaring a formal vote on an impeachment inquiry is illegal, you won't find the Constitution or CRS reports state that a vote must be held for such orders to be valid.
Mc_Big_G 7y ago
>Each and every one of us needs to have a nice long think about our own ethics and what we're willing to support. Funny statement coming from someone who thinks the impeachment of Trump is a "coup". Do you support pussy grabbing, kids in cages, abandoning our allies, allowing foreign governments to assassinate resident journalists, a constant stream of lies and gas lighting from the President, doing nothing about foreign interference in our elections, the purchase of political ads spouting outright lies, conflicts of interest in President's businesses, rolling back civil and environmental protections, etc... You should have a nice long think about your own ethics and what you're willing to support, hypocrite.

root_axis 7y ago

> “just don’t spend money there” is a bit reductionist and trivializes the problem of corporations with more power than nation-states. You're totally mistaken if you believe that boycotts and the like aren't taken seriously by big companies, especially companies like Apple where the brand is more important than the product. Of course, it all depends on the size of the boycott, but it doesn't have to cost them millions to become a major problem.

decoyworker 7y ago
They are seeking new revenue in the Chinese market. To them they see a minuscule boycott in the US as the cost of gaining that market- net positive.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Things aren't so black and white behind the scenes. Whether or not a boycott is "minuscule" isn't measured in dollars, it's how the brand is perceived and the second-order effects that perception creates.
- SmirkingRevenge 7y ago
  China, through its own behavior in situations like these, makes its own market less attractive for companies and investors, though. You'd have to be crazy to see what is going on right now, and go all-in in with the market in China. The arbitrary power of the CPC over market access is a huge liability. Big companies may still want to do business in China, but they need stronger footholds in other markets to offset the risk.
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    That's true. The Chinese government could just decide they do not like you and you have no recourse whatsoever. Good point.
m3kw9 7y ago
Nobody is gonna boycott something they use daily and depend on

rayalez 7y ago

For an amazing and concise explanation of why “just don’t spend money there” strategy is very difficult, check out this post by Scott Alexander: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-libertarian-faq/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/22/repost-the-non-liberta... (search for sections 2.3 and 2.3.1)

tnel77 7y ago

I am almost always against more government regulation and firmly believe in the power of our collective wallets. That being said, I try to hear out other viewpoints because it’s entirely possible that I am wrong. So, tell me, what law would fix this situation? A law that forces tech corporations to allow free speech? Or a law that forces companies to put ethics before profits? I genuinely don’t know what law we could make that would address the issue while also being fair and enforceable. It seems a lot easier to get the people to rally behind a boycott than to get legislators to have a good idea and actually act upon it.

smsm42 7y ago

Apple is one of the wealthiest because people buy their products. No other reason. Before people started buying iphones, Apple had near to zero power. If they stop doing that, they'd not have power to restrict people's choices again. Hong Kong people are risking lives for freedom. Are US people ready to risk not having the latest greatest iphone, or maybe they don't need that damn freedom that much? And we already see what government with laws created to restrict and punish behavior can do. Of course, our government will never do that, we know they'd always use their immense powers responsibly and for the good of the people, right? Right?!

drak0n1c 7y ago

There are lawmakers - both GOP and Democrat - who are in favor of recognizing social and app platforms as public squares. Such regulation would limit arbitrary corporate deplatforming.