Or, you know, maybe the world isn’t black and white, and you could read the whole linked article to see why Apple might want to reasonably oppose certain provis

Or, you know, maybe the world isn’t black and white, and you could read the whole linked article to see why Apple might want to reasonably oppose certain provisions of the bill, instead of simply being “evil”, whatever that means: > However, there is one potential explanation. > In July, campaign groups called on Apple to err on the side of caution by ceasing using production facilities based in the Uyghur Region of China. The bill as it is currently written might make that the only way that US companies could ensure compliance. > > One provision in the bill requires public companies to certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission that their products are not made using forced labor from Xinjiang. If companies are found to have used forced labor from the region, they could be prosecuted for securities violations. > If Apple cannot easily avoid using downstream suppliers based in the region, it may be that it is trying to dilute the provision to something more along the lines of a requirement to conduct audits, investigate claims, and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of forced labor.