5 ms·

There’s a lot going on in that complaint. This US based employee approved the app in the Chinese App Store, and it was not the first screw up they had made. I’m

There’s a lot going on in that complaint. This US based employee approved the app in the Chinese App Store, and it was not the first screw up they had made. I’m sympathic to a lousy job experience at any employer. While it sounds more like a DEI issue at heart, and possibly a training or hiring failure, I’m doubtful that the courts would not side with Apple here.

drewwwwww 6y ago
the plaintiff’s core allegation is that the other “screw ups” were concocted (or at least exaggerated in severity) as a retaliation for approving the app and/or discussing the situation with peers.
berdario 6y ago
I haven't looked into the other screw ups, but I basically agree with everything in the snippet of the complaint that appears in the article, except one thing: "it should remain on the App Store as a matter of free speech" Free speech is a matter for the government, not for private business decisions... If you as an employee are pushing back against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to have a bad time (i.e. risk losing the job, as it happened). That said, I'm curious about this Guo Media, and the first thing I found when looking that up is: https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-gtv-media-sec-probe_n_5f3eed87c5b697824f964ed9 https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-g... "Free speech" is often used as a fig leaf for the alt right, so this is unfortunately unsurprising :/ I wish good luck to Trieu Pham, even if personally I wouldn't have picked Guo Media as the hill to die on
- rhexs 6y ago
  Yes, “free speech” includes speech you don’t like. That’s the point.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Yes, and you aren’t required to host other people’s free speech in your home, property or business.
    - mafuy 6y ago
      But in this case, the (Chinese) government induced a company to annoy an employee. That actually is an assault on free-speech, because it was not the company itself that decided to do so. If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, does not and must not make a difference. Else, the protection of a citizen would be worthless. The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that make it any better?
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Apple made a business decision. They are free to ignore the Chinese governments wishes, at the cost of access to the Chinese market place. The reviewer works for Apple, and has to follow Apples rules, not make up their own. I also dislike that Apple kowtows to the CCP, but that is their choice and given the large revenues involved, I understand it. I won’t tell Apple Shareholders to leave a legal market and give up a quarter of their share value, just in order to meet my ethical standards. You may enjoy walking around your home wearing no pants. That’s your right. But when you go to a work place, it’s your employers right to tell you to put your pants back on.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? American dems are definitely less hostile than conservatives towards China so it feels natural than a wanted fugitive in China would work with conservatives. I agree free speech doesn't apply here, given Apple it's a private company, but it definitely aligns Apple with Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatever other Big Tech company that censures whatever they don't like (applying their own policies only when they want). It's also interesting to see who's lining up with China.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes someone "alt right" is absolutely insane.
    - bjustin 6y ago
      “Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
        winston_smith 6y ago
        (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")
    - geofft 6y ago
      It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
- will4274 6y ago
  > Free speech is a matter for the government No, it isn't. Free speech is a moral principle, and a matter for philosophers, liberals, and all thinking people generally. The first amendment is a specific codification of the moral principle. It's the first amendment that is a matter for government. While I agree with you that employees aren't in a good position to advocate for free speech, consumers are - and we should all be holding Apple to the standard Trieu Pham tried to hold Apple to - not because of this or that law, but because free speech is the right thing to do.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > If you as an employee are pushing back against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to have a bad Actually, in california, your statement is not true. Califorinia has numerous labor protections, that fall within the category of "free speech", and that prevent private businesses from retaliating against employees for certain reasons. To give an extreme example, although it might be federally legal for a private company to interrogate and fire all democrats, it would absolutely not be legal in California.
  - tombot 6y ago
    California is a single state in one of many countries in the world
    - stale2002 6y ago
      This thread is about a california company being sued in a california court. So it is absolutely relevant to bring up california law regarding this specific case.

drewwwwww 6y ago

the plaintiff’s core allegation is that the other “screw ups” were concocted (or at least exaggerated in severity) as a retaliation for approving the app and/or discussing the situation with peers.

berdario 6y ago

I haven't looked into the other screw ups, but I basically agree with everything in the snippet of the complaint that appears in the article, except one thing: "it should remain on the App Store as a matter of free speech" Free speech is a matter for the government, not for private business decisions... If you as an employee are pushing back against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to have a bad time (i.e. risk losing the job, as it happened). That said, I'm curious about this Guo Media, and the first thing I found when looking that up is: https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-gtv-media-sec-probe_n_5f3eed87c5b697824f964ed9 https://huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/steve-bannon-guo-wengui-g... "Free speech" is often used as a fig leaf for the alt right, so this is unfortunately unsurprising :/ I wish good luck to Trieu Pham, even if personally I wouldn't have picked Guo Media as the hill to die on

rhexs 6y ago
Yes, “free speech” includes speech you don’t like. That’s the point.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Yes, and you aren’t required to host other people’s free speech in your home, property or business.
  - mafuy 6y ago
    But in this case, the (Chinese) government induced a company to annoy an employee. That actually is an assault on free-speech, because it was not the company itself that decided to do so. If this is allowed, then what would prevent the US government from telling Apple to fire everyone who they do not like? If the gov commits a free speech prohibited action itself, or directs a company to do it for them, does not and must not make a difference. Else, the protection of a citizen would be worthless. The difference here to my example is that is was the CCP instead of the USG that induced the action. But does that make it any better?
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Apple made a business decision. They are free to ignore the Chinese governments wishes, at the cost of access to the Chinese market place. The reviewer works for Apple, and has to follow Apples rules, not make up their own. I also dislike that Apple kowtows to the CCP, but that is their choice and given the large revenues involved, I understand it. I won’t tell Apple Shareholders to leave a legal market and give up a quarter of their share value, just in order to meet my ethical standards. You may enjoy walking around your home wearing no pants. That’s your right. But when you go to a work place, it’s your employers right to tell you to put your pants back on.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? American dems are definitely less hostile than conservatives towards China so it feels natural than a wanted fugitive in China would work with conservatives. I agree free speech doesn't apply here, given Apple it's a private company, but it definitely aligns Apple with Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatever other Big Tech company that censures whatever they don't like (applying their own policies only when they want). It's also interesting to see who's lining up with China.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes someone "alt right" is absolutely insane.
  - bjustin 6y ago
    “Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
      - winston_smith 6y ago
        (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")
  - geofft 6y ago
    It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
will4274 6y ago
> Free speech is a matter for the government No, it isn't. Free speech is a moral principle, and a matter for philosophers, liberals, and all thinking people generally. The first amendment is a specific codification of the moral principle. It's the first amendment that is a matter for government. While I agree with you that employees aren't in a good position to advocate for free speech, consumers are - and we should all be holding Apple to the standard Trieu Pham tried to hold Apple to - not because of this or that law, but because free speech is the right thing to do.
stale2002 6y ago
> If you as an employee are pushing back against your employer because of "free speech", you're going to have a bad Actually, in california, your statement is not true. Califorinia has numerous labor protections, that fall within the category of "free speech", and that prevent private businesses from retaliating against employees for certain reasons. To give an extreme example, although it might be federally legal for a private company to interrogate and fire all democrats, it would absolutely not be legal in California.
- tombot 6y ago
  California is a single state in one of many countries in the world
  - stale2002 6y ago
    This thread is about a california company being sued in a california court. So it is absolutely relevant to bring up california law regarding this specific case.