6 ms·

I'm legitimately baffled by this sentiment, not just when it's targeted at Apple (see Blizzard). I feel like I missed a memo everyone got but me where we decide

by 4wsn 5y ago

I'm legitimately baffled by this sentiment, not just when it's targeted at Apple (see Blizzard). I feel like I missed a memo everyone got but me where we decided to only do business with people we agree with. I'm getting on in my 30s and I can sense my ideas fossilizing somewhat, so I do try my best to counter that by being open to new ideas. But this one is hard to process. What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with? Boycott them, trade with them but ignore their domestic laws if we find them distasteful, organize coups to overthrow their governments and install ones we agree with? What's the actual plan once we're done posturing?

redis_mlc 5y ago
I guess you didn't get the memo: - the CCP has been in a Cold War with the US since the Korean War - the CCP is in a genocide campaign against multiple religions - the CCP finances their health care syste with involuntary organ donations - the CCP's main military target for their nuclear and hypersonic missiles is the US. It's not a "disagreement." They're monsters.
supercanuck 5y ago
>What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with? Criticize them and slowly change public sentiment of the brand until they make better choices. This is the free market and democratic way.
over_bridge 5y ago
Why would you do business with people you disagree with? I wouldn't knowingly serve wife beaters or pedos in my ice cream shop. Why would I trade with genocidal human rights abusers as a corporation? Cause they have cash? Come on, have some standards. Don't be an empty suit and actually believe in something.
- 4wsn 5y ago
  This isn't the same situation as kicking out a wife beater or a pedophile from your ice cream shop. Your ice cream shop is a purely domestic business, and your customers are obligated to follow domestic laws, which ban pedophilia and domestic violence. While you might feel heroic kicking out a man who slapped his wife in your shop, you're probably better off just calling the police. China is the US's second largest trading partner, and the EU's largest trading partner. If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Legislate laws that prevent corporations from doing business with China. But to expect a corporation to take up the role of independently enforcing morality is uncharted territory, and I've yet to hear a coherent reason why corporations need to take on a role that until now, has been done by the government.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    > If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Surely that same principle also extends to someone choosing not to do business with corporations who do business with those who do morally reprehensible things.
apatters 5y ago
We do business with countries where we disagree with their government all the time. The difference with China is that they have so much market power they can alter norms of free expression in our country with that power, and they're very proactive about doing so. If we want to preserve our way of life yeah absolutely we can boycott, sanction, apply tariffs or whatever until they stop doing this. There is already a gradual migration away from Chinese suppliers because of it.
- 4wsn 5y ago
  Fair point. I might disagree with your method, because I think boycotts and sanctions would only further entrench the Chinese government. They'll turn around and tell their people "See? The West only wants to keep you down!" (see Iran), rather than actually result in any positive change. But I do fully agree that this role belongs to government, rather than expecting a corporation to enforce the moral will of a people.
  - jatone 5y ago
    which is fine if they play that propaganda game with their own. like most authoritarian regimes it'll implode eventually. we absolutely should be selective in who we do business with as to not allow authoritarian regimes to hold power since they are dangerous to everyone around them. boycotts and sanctions are very effective method for doing this, as long as you give them a way to actually reenter the market if they actually change. Our market is our leverage, if you want entry to it then you need to play by our rules. if that means you need to stop committing genocide and move towards democratic rule so be it.
kinjba11 5y ago
I'm in my 30s and baffled by folks in their 30s who don't understand basic ethics and market forces. Businesses respond to bad PR all the time. The CCP is committing human rights violations all the time. Add the two together. It is like someone in the 1830s United States asking why slavery is bad, or someone in 1930s Germany asking why Nazis are bad - after all, slavery and the Third Reich make great businesses with superb ROI!
- 4wsn 5y ago
  While I'm grateful to live in a world without Nazis (in power) or (legal) slavery, my bafflement stems from the newness of the concept of corporations taking up the role of upholding moral standards. Up until now corporations have focused on what they do best, which is making money, and the role of government is to legislate laws that reflect the ethics and morality of its people. This has worked pretty well so far. For example, tobacco companies can't legally sell cigarettes to 12 year olds. My bafflement is, why the change? Why must Apple, or any other corporation take up a role that previously belonged to the government?
  - kinjba11 5y ago
    You are right - typically government is responsible for stopping bad behavior. However, in the US especially, there is a widespread feeling that at the highest levels of government where these problems are addressed, the leadership is (take your pick) incompetent, ineffective, captured by lobbying, obstructed, too slow, or otherwise prevented one way or another from doing the right thing. The standard role bearer is broken. That's reason #1. Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2. Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3. So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.
novok 5y ago
I think apple superfan Gruber's idea on it is actually pretty good balance: https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps Don't make yourself the single point of failure that the Chinese government could apply pressure on in the first place. Make iCloud backups actually encrypted fully. They know they are being induced to do these things, they have competitors (android) that have options to mitigate these things (side loading, actual encrypted backups) , but they don't do it for honestly suspicious or greedy reasons at this point, despite saying they're all about 'privacy' on bilboards.

by 4wsn 5y ago

redis_mlc 5y ago

I guess you didn't get the memo: - the CCP has been in a Cold War with the US since the Korean War - the CCP is in a genocide campaign against multiple religions - the CCP finances their health care syste with involuntary organ donations - the CCP's main military target for their nuclear and hypersonic missiles is the US. It's not a "disagreement." They're monsters.

supercanuck 5y ago

>What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with? Criticize them and slowly change public sentiment of the brand until they make better choices. This is the free market and democratic way.

over_bridge 5y ago

Why would you do business with people you disagree with? I wouldn't knowingly serve wife beaters or pedos in my ice cream shop. Why would I trade with genocidal human rights abusers as a corporation? Cause they have cash? Come on, have some standards. Don't be an empty suit and actually believe in something.

4wsn 5y ago
This isn't the same situation as kicking out a wife beater or a pedophile from your ice cream shop. Your ice cream shop is a purely domestic business, and your customers are obligated to follow domestic laws, which ban pedophilia and domestic violence. While you might feel heroic kicking out a man who slapped his wife in your shop, you're probably better off just calling the police. China is the US's second largest trading partner, and the EU's largest trading partner. If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Legislate laws that prevent corporations from doing business with China. But to expect a corporation to take up the role of independently enforcing morality is uncharted territory, and I've yet to hear a coherent reason why corporations need to take on a role that until now, has been done by the government.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  > If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Surely that same principle also extends to someone choosing not to do business with corporations who do business with those who do morally reprehensible things.

apatters 5y ago

We do business with countries where we disagree with their government all the time. The difference with China is that they have so much market power they can alter norms of free expression in our country with that power, and they're very proactive about doing so. If we want to preserve our way of life yeah absolutely we can boycott, sanction, apply tariffs or whatever until they stop doing this. There is already a gradual migration away from Chinese suppliers because of it.

4wsn 5y ago
Fair point. I might disagree with your method, because I think boycotts and sanctions would only further entrench the Chinese government. They'll turn around and tell their people "See? The West only wants to keep you down!" (see Iran), rather than actually result in any positive change. But I do fully agree that this role belongs to government, rather than expecting a corporation to enforce the moral will of a people.
- jatone 5y ago
  which is fine if they play that propaganda game with their own. like most authoritarian regimes it'll implode eventually. we absolutely should be selective in who we do business with as to not allow authoritarian regimes to hold power since they are dangerous to everyone around them. boycotts and sanctions are very effective method for doing this, as long as you give them a way to actually reenter the market if they actually change. Our market is our leverage, if you want entry to it then you need to play by our rules. if that means you need to stop committing genocide and move towards democratic rule so be it.

kinjba11 5y ago

I'm in my 30s and baffled by folks in their 30s who don't understand basic ethics and market forces. Businesses respond to bad PR all the time. The CCP is committing human rights violations all the time. Add the two together. It is like someone in the 1830s United States asking why slavery is bad, or someone in 1930s Germany asking why Nazis are bad - after all, slavery and the Third Reich make great businesses with superb ROI!

4wsn 5y ago
While I'm grateful to live in a world without Nazis (in power) or (legal) slavery, my bafflement stems from the newness of the concept of corporations taking up the role of upholding moral standards. Up until now corporations have focused on what they do best, which is making money, and the role of government is to legislate laws that reflect the ethics and morality of its people. This has worked pretty well so far. For example, tobacco companies can't legally sell cigarettes to 12 year olds. My bafflement is, why the change? Why must Apple, or any other corporation take up a role that previously belonged to the government?
- kinjba11 5y ago
  You are right - typically government is responsible for stopping bad behavior. However, in the US especially, there is a widespread feeling that at the highest levels of government where these problems are addressed, the leadership is (take your pick) incompetent, ineffective, captured by lobbying, obstructed, too slow, or otherwise prevented one way or another from doing the right thing. The standard role bearer is broken. That's reason #1. Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2. Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3. So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.

novok 5y ago

I think apple superfan Gruber's idea on it is actually pretty good balance: https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps Don't make yourself the single point of failure that the Chinese government could apply pressure on in the first place. Make iCloud backups actually encrypted fully. They know they are being induced to do these things, they have competitors (android) that have options to mitigate these things (side loading, actual encrypted backups) , but they don't do it for honestly suspicious or greedy reasons at this point, despite saying they're all about 'privacy' on bilboards.