11 ms·

It's easy to pick on Apple, when you don't know the history of these political issues. Not picking on Red Hat, but because I know this from the first hand it wa

It's easy to pick on Apple, when you don't know the history of these political issues. Not picking on Red Hat, but because I know this from the first hand it was 18 years ago that they removed the Taiwanese flag from KDE3 control center: https://redhat-list.redhat.narkive.com/b3p8HQaa/bug-70235 https://redhat-list.redhat.narkive.com/b3p8HQaa/bug-70235 Apple is not a government, it's a business. They'll either have to obey the local laws or they'll lose business. While we are here, checkout how Google Maps handles these issues: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/14/google-maps-political-borders/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/02/14/google-...

throwaway2048 6y ago
Is there any limit, in your opinion, to what a company should willingly comply with from a government?
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands are valid within the eyes of local law. To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. I don’t think that’s a precedent you want to set. With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to do business in countries that don’t uphold the same standards as the US. I would argue a better place to have that conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies. I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with China tied to their human rights violations. But don’t think right approach is campaigning individual companies.
  - phnofive 6y ago
    > I don’t think that’s a president you want to set. Typo?
    - avianlyric 6y ago
      Yeah, that and the incredibly unhelpful spellcheck/autocorrect in iOS.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    > To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. This is a straw man. Most people recognize a company can't ignore Chinese law and do business in China.
  - morbicer 6y ago
    so it's fine to do business with countries that are literally committing genocide? And profit from it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_... Either a company has some sort of conscience or not. I know that companies are created to make profit but there is a certain boundary after which it's fair that they are under public scrutiny, even if there is no government embargo on China.
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      Doing business with someone is not the same as condoning their actions. You 100% buy things every day from companies whose actions you disagree with.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        Sure, but my personal ability to encourage change through a boycott is limited. A large company's ability is orders of magnitude higher. And often I don't have much choice what company I buy things from based on what's available, and even when I do, they all often have similar (or different, but just as bad) problems. But this goes into a bit of a policy/morality/philosophy question: should companies have high moral standards, and give up market share in places where they are unable to adhere to those standards? The stock capitalist answer is probably "no, gaining market share and increasing profits is more important". Personally I think that's a fundamental problem with capitalism.
        avianlyric 6y ago
        The way companies are run today is built around the church of stockholder value, above every other concern. (Which sucks, but you can’t argue with reality) Companies have no moral compass, and we should never expect the to behave in any moral way, unless someone thinks it’ll create more stockholder value than acting immorally. I can’t help but feel that all this hand wringing about what Apple (or any other large company) should or should not be doing is a waste of time. Time that would be better spent trying to build consensus around what principles we as a society care about, and wish to project into the world. Then we should just write laws and regulation to make it happen, and to force the hands of companies. Anything else strikes me as futile and pointless. A distraction from achieving real meaningful change.
- kypro 6y ago
  I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents. It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that does those things will take its place. The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of course is that this could then make the economy as a whole uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take action. Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has probably waited too long to take action at this point. This would have been easier in the past, but now China has become so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard to imagine any significant business or political intervention happening. In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future when China is the core market for most multinational companies political intervention basically becomes impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).
nabla9 6y ago
Apple lobbying against Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States goes beyond that.
- throwawayfire 6y ago
  One could argue this to be evidence that Apple is willing to disagree with an authoritarian government.
- simonh 6y ago
  This is gross misrepresentation. They did not lobby against it, they lobbied for some changes including being clearer and more specific about which Chinese organisations were covered. They did ask for some deadlines to be extended but do not oppose the law. Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy, polices it's supply chain and has excluded suppliers for violations. Can you provide any examples of another company doing more?
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Let me clarify. Apple wants to water down legislation so that it has no consequences, and can't be effectively enforced. (1) Apple publicly supports everything in the bill. That's their PR. (2) Apple wants to water down key provisions of the bill, which would hold U.S. companies accountable for using Uighur forced labor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u... >“What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not have any real consequences,” The bill is not about Apple. If Apple is doing everything right, their costs may increase marginally. The bill would force US companies that don't have as good human rights records to comply. Apple lobbying against the bill is enabling this. Summary: Apple wants to save little money. Result of that would be that unethical US based companies could continue their unethical business in China.
    - simonh 6y ago
      I think you're completely misunderstanding the incentives for Apple here. The theory is they don't want to deal with doing anything about forced labour, because evil, therefore their changes must be to water down the legislation. That's not the situation though. They already have a forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and have even already dumped suppliers for violating these policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The reason is because then everybody else would also have to do what Apple already does, and face the costs and accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.
spacemanmatt 6y ago
> Apple is not a government It is a de facto government with assets and income that dwarf most U.S. states, as well as most foreign countries and many multinational companies. Calling their legal compliance obedient is a cruel disservice to the facts of their constant political maneuvering.
- 3grdlurker 6y ago
  From an assets and income standpoint, maybe, but they’re not a de facto government unless they have sovereignty, and they don’t. Once they can decide on which wars to start with which countries, maybe we can talk then.
  - spacemanmatt 6y ago
    Maybe when wars are not fought at the behest and for the benefit of the wealthy we can say they are not a de facto government.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Money alone does not a government make.
  - spacemanmatt 6y ago
    That's a rather naive thing to say about the wealthiest corporation in the world. I can't deny the overwhelming influence of money on governments so easily.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      Influence on governments is really not at all comparable to being a government.
- tamasnet 6y ago
  > It is a de facto government Say you're a US citizen. You can choose not to buy an Apple product. You cannot chose to not pay your taxes. This is just one of many distinctions between a government and a corporation.

throwaway2048 6y ago

Is there any limit, in your opinion, to what a company should willingly comply with from a government?

avianlyric 6y ago
Presumably not, as long as those government requests/demands are valid within the eyes of local law. To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. I don’t think that’s a precedent you want to set. With regards to moral obligations of US companies seeking to do business in countries that don’t uphold the same standards as the US. I would argue a better place to have that conversation is in Congress, which could then seek to apply export controls to all companies. Rather than just relying on the good will and moral judgment of amoral companies. I would personally love to see restrictions on trade with China tied to their human rights violations. But don’t think right approach is campaigning individual companies.
- phnofive 6y ago
  > I don’t think that’s a president you want to set. Typo?
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Yeah, that and the incredibly unhelpful spellcheck/autocorrect in iOS.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  > To say otherwise is to suggest that companies should exist above the law, and ignore the rule of law where it’s inconvenient. This is a straw man. Most people recognize a company can't ignore Chinese law and do business in China.
- morbicer 6y ago
  so it's fine to do business with countries that are literally committing genocide? And profit from it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_... Either a company has some sort of conscience or not. I know that companies are created to make profit but there is a certain boundary after which it's fair that they are under public scrutiny, even if there is no government embargo on China.
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    Doing business with someone is not the same as condoning their actions. You 100% buy things every day from companies whose actions you disagree with.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Sure, but my personal ability to encourage change through a boycott is limited. A large company's ability is orders of magnitude higher. And often I don't have much choice what company I buy things from based on what's available, and even when I do, they all often have similar (or different, but just as bad) problems. But this goes into a bit of a policy/morality/philosophy question: should companies have high moral standards, and give up market share in places where they are unable to adhere to those standards? The stock capitalist answer is probably "no, gaining market share and increasing profits is more important". Personally I think that's a fundamental problem with capitalism.
      - avianlyric 6y ago
        The way companies are run today is built around the church of stockholder value, above every other concern. (Which sucks, but you can’t argue with reality) Companies have no moral compass, and we should never expect the to behave in any moral way, unless someone thinks it’ll create more stockholder value than acting immorally. I can’t help but feel that all this hand wringing about what Apple (or any other large company) should or should not be doing is a waste of time. Time that would be better spent trying to build consensus around what principles we as a society care about, and wish to project into the world. Then we should just write laws and regulation to make it happen, and to force the hands of companies. Anything else strikes me as futile and pointless. A distraction from achieving real meaningful change.
kypro 6y ago
I don't think we should expect companies to be moral agents. It's not that they shouldn't be, but more that it's impractical because what's right and wrong (or simply acceptable) depends on who you ask. Furthermore, companies willing to operate immorally have a competitive advantage over those which don't -- if Apple didn't cooperate with authoritarian governments or exploit developing countries for cheap labour they won't stay competitive and a company that does those things will take its place. The answer IMO has to be regulation. We have to cut off the incentives companies have to act immorally. The problem of course is that this could then make the economy as a whole uncompetitive so politicians are equally unlikely to take action. Not to be a doomer, but on the issue of China the West has probably waited too long to take action at this point. This would have been easier in the past, but now China has become so dominant, and with Western companies and economies being so dependant on China for labour and manufacturing it's hard to imagine any significant business or political intervention happening. In fact, this is likely just the beginning, in the future when China is the core market for most multinational companies political intervention basically becomes impossible. No company is going to pull out of their largest market (especially if it's growing faster than the US).

nabla9 6y ago

Apple lobbying against Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act in the United States goes beyond that.

throwawayfire 6y ago
One could argue this to be evidence that Apple is willing to disagree with an authoritarian government.
simonh 6y ago
This is gross misrepresentation. They did not lobby against it, they lobbied for some changes including being clearer and more specific about which Chinese organisations were covered. They did ask for some deadlines to be extended but do not oppose the law. Apple has a strong anti-slavery policy, polices it's supply chain and has excluded suppliers for violations. Can you provide any examples of another company doing more?
- nabla9 6y ago
  Let me clarify. Apple wants to water down legislation so that it has no consequences, and can't be effectively enforced. (1) Apple publicly supports everything in the bill. That's their PR. (2) Apple wants to water down key provisions of the bill, which would hold U.S. companies accountable for using Uighur forced labor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-uighur/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u... >“What Apple would like is we all just sit and talk and not have any real consequences,” The bill is not about Apple. If Apple is doing everything right, their costs may increase marginally. The bill would force US companies that don't have as good human rights records to comply. Apple lobbying against the bill is enabling this. Summary: Apple wants to save little money. Result of that would be that unethical US based companies could continue their unethical business in China.
  - simonh 6y ago
    I think you're completely misunderstanding the incentives for Apple here. The theory is they don't want to deal with doing anything about forced labour, because evil, therefore their changes must be to water down the legislation. That's not the situation though. They already have a forced labour policy, already do supply chain audits and have even already dumped suppliers for violating these policies. Their actual proposed changes really are just to make the legislation clearer and more enforceable. The reason is because then everybody else would also have to do what Apple already does, and face the costs and accountability the same way Apple does. This legislation is a windfall for them because it creates an expensive moat that it's hard for their competitors to cross.

spacemanmatt 6y ago

> Apple is not a government It is a de facto government with assets and income that dwarf most U.S. states, as well as most foreign countries and many multinational companies. Calling their legal compliance obedient is a cruel disservice to the facts of their constant political maneuvering.

3grdlurker 6y ago
From an assets and income standpoint, maybe, but they’re not a de facto government unless they have sovereignty, and they don’t. Once they can decide on which wars to start with which countries, maybe we can talk then.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  Maybe when wars are not fought at the behest and for the benefit of the wealthy we can say they are not a de facto government.
airstrike 6y ago
Money alone does not a government make.
- spacemanmatt 6y ago
  That's a rather naive thing to say about the wealthiest corporation in the world. I can't deny the overwhelming influence of money on governments so easily.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Influence on governments is really not at all comparable to being a government.
tamasnet 6y ago
> It is a de facto government Say you're a US citizen. You can choose not to buy an Apple product. You cannot chose to not pay your taxes. This is just one of many distinctions between a government and a corporation.