6 ms·

Kodak deletes Xinjiang photo from Instagram, vows to 'respect Chinese gov't'

79 points by pcaversaccio 5y ago

robgibbons 5y ago
> Wack described his images as a visual narrative of Xinjiang’s “abrupt descent into an Orwellian dystopia” over the past five years. I believe the preferred nomenclature of the Party is "Orwellian dystopia with Chinese characteristics"
eurasiantiger 5y ago
Welp, no need to ever buy Kodak products again.
- deltasixeight 5y ago
  Businesses shouldn't care about business they should only care about my own personal view point on politics. Yeah, Hollywood is doing the same thing as Kodak. I don't have your will power though. I still watch movies, especially Marvel and Disney. But at least I admit it. What pisses me off is a friend of mine who boycotted a company who supported China but then he still watches American movies. Like do you not realize the whole industry is sucking up to China? Either make a stand for real or don't make a stand at all, don't be a hypocrite. *Obviously* you're not doing what my friend is doing. You're *Obviously* not a hypocrite. You must not watch any movies or TV shows at all.
  - vimacs2 5y ago
    I'm fairly critical of the efficacy of boycotts but your anger at your friend seems motivated by a desire to rationalize your own complacency. We live in a society that is built on a fundamentally unjust framework. It's practically impossible to avoid being tied to exploitative supply chains short of living off the grid and hand making all your own clothes and farming your own produce - and even then you will need to effectively pay tribute to your local municipality or risk falling victim to state violence. However, incomplete abstinence is better than no abstinence. Every product you refuse to buy is another dollar that these greedy amoral profiteers are deprived from. I think that counts for something, even if it is not a complete solution. As for media specifically, piracy is still a thing. Just saying ;)
    - deltasixeight 5y ago
      My friend doesn't exist. He's there to illustrate a point. I thought it was obvious; guess not. It wasn't derogatory sarcasm, but sort of like a polite counter example about how irrational the action he is proposing is in the larger context of society. >However, incomplete abstinence is better than no abstinence. Every product you refuse to buy is another dollar that these greedy amoral profiteers are deprived from. I think that counts for something, even if it is not a complete solution. What if you work at Kodak and realize that Kodak is in a critical moment in the camera universe. Film is dead, Kodak needs to radically transform itself in order to survive. My job which is also closely tied to my survival depends critically on the business not being Boycotted by anybody, that means Americans and Chinese people. So basically by doing this boycott, our friend has possibly condemned all the employees to lose their jobs something that's tied closely to their livelihood. Literally harming people on American soil just so he and others can "barely" harm China by keeping a photo online. Is that not evil? Likely not. Just unawareness of nuance of the complexity of the geopolitical world. Nothing is ever that simple. Notice how I emphasized the plight of an individual rather than the company or even the country? Things need to be brought down to the job level for individuals to understand that the consequences of harming of a company isn't so simple. In short the consequences of "incomplete" abstinence in a complex world is complex in itself. It's not "better than no abstinence." >We live in a society that is built on a fundamentally unjust framework. It's practically impossible to avoid being tied to exploitative supply chains short of living off the grid and hand making all your own clothes and farming your own produce - and even then you will need to effectively pay tribute to your local municipality or risk falling victim to state violence. Not only is the framework unjust, but the complexity of the assigning justice is fraught with further complexity. Yeah China is lying about Xinjiang. Yeah a lot of what China is doing here is unjust, atrocious and unprecedented. However think about why China did this? A terrorist attack on Chinese soil that is basically the equivalent of 9/11 happened to Chinese people happened and Xinjiang is the response. Their actions are done in order to permanently stamp out terrorism with minimal resources, minimal violence while maximizing central control and eliminating as many freedoms as possible. I would say that China has succeeded in achieving this goal. I would also say the violence and slaughter that occurred after 9/11 due to actual ground war started by the US is much worse than China. Including both sides the number of people who died violently should total in the millions. Additionally I would say that whether these actions were successful is debatable. From certain perspectives the situation has only gotten worse. Starting wars and slaughtering terrorists counterintuitively doesn't eliminate terrorism. Forcing people into education camps and imposing absolute authority and birth control seems to work but has it's obvious atrocious downsides. So which is better in your opinion? Mass slaughter or mass re-education and birth control? Hard choices, truly I would try to forge a third option but so far not even the United States is capable of doing that. >As for media specifically, piracy is still a thing. Just saying ;) ;) so turning to theft is a justified response to an industry that wants to stay apolitical for the sake of business? Maybe think about the complexity of the consequences here. You are harming an entire supply chain that contains directors, VFX artists, VFX programmers, writers, comedians, etc, etc... Notice how I emphasized the plight of an individual rather than the company or even the country? Things need to be brought down to the job level for individuals to understand that the consequences of harming of a company isn't so simple. Personally, I pirate everything from music to software to movies. Literally everything. But of course because all of Hollywood basically stays apolitical about this China issue, it effectively justifies all my actions. Kodak and practically every single company on the face of the earth is doing the same thing. The more of the world I pirate the more justice I'm doing for the world. Of course things are just THAT simple. No in all seriousness I do pirate on occasion. But I don't justify it. I'm not a saint. I do shitty things sometimes because I'm cheap. That's the way it is.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  You mean Kodak actually still makes something that you can buy?
ramesh31 5y ago
So long as our government refuses to materially oppose the CCP regime in any way, this will continue to be the correct move for corporations. Generate some bad press in the West, maybe be targeted with a half hearted slacktivist hashtag "boycott" that will be forgotten in a week, and in return for kissing the ring maintain access to a market of over a billion other consumers. It's a no-brainer.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  I think you're getting downvoted because people don't want what you're saying to be true, not because anyone thinks it's actually false. Unfortunately, the U.S. has lost sight of the fact that you get what you incentivize. I am upset at Kodak for this, but it was a rational decision given the incentive structure.
  - deltasixeight 5y ago
    The US government doesn't incentivize companies in this way. Mostly the US government creates incentives related to: - Economic policy - Environmental policy - Public Health Economic sanctions aren't done to incentivize companies. They are done to impose political will and they are usually done on countries that have little business influence. Generally, International Politics are never are a part of "incentives." For international politics you and I are the incentive. If you refuse to buy a product because the company doesn't align with your viewpoint of international politics, then you have created an incentive.
- deltasixeight 5y ago
  The US government refuses to materially oppose the CCP regime in any way BECAUSE of corporations. Corporations have more influence on daily life and government policy than anything else out there. Part of the "correct move" by corporations is to influence this policy to allow corporations to profit off of China. Also logistically given globalization if China was actually boycotted it would do a lot of collateral damage in addition to intended damages.
LocalH 5y ago
Kodak matters? I figured they'd gone the way of RCA and Westinghouse
- beezischillin 5y ago
  Last I heard of them was when they offered to help manufacture vaccines last year, but I haven’t really seen them around in the consumer space for ages. Perhaps they do industrial manufacturing?
- nineteen999 5y ago
  They filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. Good article on the missteps they made during the start of the digital photography age is here: https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technology https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technolo...
- villgax 5y ago
  Patents I guess
nielsbot 5y ago
So, can we see the photo? Now I want to see it.
villgax 5y ago
Didn't exactly expect a dead company to have a spine.
spacecadet1900 5y ago
Absolutely sickening groveling. American companies need to uphold American values. Global capitalism lets them cater to the worst actors.
- native_samples 5y ago
  This is hardly the fault of global capitalism, given that China is a communist country, that western culture is also quite clear that corporations may not fight back against abuses of government power. We expect companies to kneel before our own governments, we cannot therefore be upset when they kneel for all governments.
  - deltasixeight 5y ago
    Corporations kneel to short term profit. Thus they will kneel to anything if it means increasing short term profit. Any company that gets political, does so as a means of increasing or defending short term profits. It's how capitalism works. Corporations are just brainless cogs with the one task of increasing short term profits. Kodak is sort of in a tough situation here.
peanut_worm 5y ago
Surprised Kodak hasn’t gone out of business yet. Spineless.
rayiner 5y ago
The spineless groveling at the feet of the CCP candidly reveals how a significant portion of our corporate executives are gutless wimps.
Proven 5y ago
"Koadk deletes Xinjiang photo from Instagram, wows to 'disrespect Chinese citizens'"
_imnothere 5y ago
Okay, nice censorship, now someone please post the deleted photo to f* em', thanks.

79 points by pcaversaccio 5y ago

> Wack described his images as a visual narrative of Xinjiang’s “abrupt descent into an Orwellian dystopia” over the past five years. I believe the preferred nomenclature of the Party is "Orwellian dystopia with Chinese characteristics"

eurasiantiger 5y ago

Welp, no need to ever buy Kodak products again.

deltasixeight 5y ago
Businesses shouldn't care about business they should only care about my own personal view point on politics. Yeah, Hollywood is doing the same thing as Kodak. I don't have your will power though. I still watch movies, especially Marvel and Disney. But at least I admit it. What pisses me off is a friend of mine who boycotted a company who supported China but then he still watches American movies. Like do you not realize the whole industry is sucking up to China? Either make a stand for real or don't make a stand at all, don't be a hypocrite. *Obviously* you're not doing what my friend is doing. You're *Obviously* not a hypocrite. You must not watch any movies or TV shows at all.
- vimacs2 5y ago
  I'm fairly critical of the efficacy of boycotts but your anger at your friend seems motivated by a desire to rationalize your own complacency. We live in a society that is built on a fundamentally unjust framework. It's practically impossible to avoid being tied to exploitative supply chains short of living off the grid and hand making all your own clothes and farming your own produce - and even then you will need to effectively pay tribute to your local municipality or risk falling victim to state violence. However, incomplete abstinence is better than no abstinence. Every product you refuse to buy is another dollar that these greedy amoral profiteers are deprived from. I think that counts for something, even if it is not a complete solution. As for media specifically, piracy is still a thing. Just saying ;)
  - deltasixeight 5y ago
    My friend doesn't exist. He's there to illustrate a point. I thought it was obvious; guess not. It wasn't derogatory sarcasm, but sort of like a polite counter example about how irrational the action he is proposing is in the larger context of society. >However, incomplete abstinence is better than no abstinence. Every product you refuse to buy is another dollar that these greedy amoral profiteers are deprived from. I think that counts for something, even if it is not a complete solution. What if you work at Kodak and realize that Kodak is in a critical moment in the camera universe. Film is dead, Kodak needs to radically transform itself in order to survive. My job which is also closely tied to my survival depends critically on the business not being Boycotted by anybody, that means Americans and Chinese people. So basically by doing this boycott, our friend has possibly condemned all the employees to lose their jobs something that's tied closely to their livelihood. Literally harming people on American soil just so he and others can "barely" harm China by keeping a photo online. Is that not evil? Likely not. Just unawareness of nuance of the complexity of the geopolitical world. Nothing is ever that simple. Notice how I emphasized the plight of an individual rather than the company or even the country? Things need to be brought down to the job level for individuals to understand that the consequences of harming of a company isn't so simple. In short the consequences of "incomplete" abstinence in a complex world is complex in itself. It's not "better than no abstinence." >We live in a society that is built on a fundamentally unjust framework. It's practically impossible to avoid being tied to exploitative supply chains short of living off the grid and hand making all your own clothes and farming your own produce - and even then you will need to effectively pay tribute to your local municipality or risk falling victim to state violence. Not only is the framework unjust, but the complexity of the assigning justice is fraught with further complexity. Yeah China is lying about Xinjiang. Yeah a lot of what China is doing here is unjust, atrocious and unprecedented. However think about why China did this? A terrorist attack on Chinese soil that is basically the equivalent of 9/11 happened to Chinese people happened and Xinjiang is the response. Their actions are done in order to permanently stamp out terrorism with minimal resources, minimal violence while maximizing central control and eliminating as many freedoms as possible. I would say that China has succeeded in achieving this goal. I would also say the violence and slaughter that occurred after 9/11 due to actual ground war started by the US is much worse than China. Including both sides the number of people who died violently should total in the millions. Additionally I would say that whether these actions were successful is debatable. From certain perspectives the situation has only gotten worse. Starting wars and slaughtering terrorists counterintuitively doesn't eliminate terrorism. Forcing people into education camps and imposing absolute authority and birth control seems to work but has it's obvious atrocious downsides. So which is better in your opinion? Mass slaughter or mass re-education and birth control? Hard choices, truly I would try to forge a third option but so far not even the United States is capable of doing that. >As for media specifically, piracy is still a thing. Just saying ;) ;) so turning to theft is a justified response to an industry that wants to stay apolitical for the sake of business? Maybe think about the complexity of the consequences here. You are harming an entire supply chain that contains directors, VFX artists, VFX programmers, writers, comedians, etc, etc... Notice how I emphasized the plight of an individual rather than the company or even the country? Things need to be brought down to the job level for individuals to understand that the consequences of harming of a company isn't so simple. Personally, I pirate everything from music to software to movies. Literally everything. But of course because all of Hollywood basically stays apolitical about this China issue, it effectively justifies all my actions. Kodak and practically every single company on the face of the earth is doing the same thing. The more of the world I pirate the more justice I'm doing for the world. Of course things are just THAT simple. No in all seriousness I do pirate on occasion. But I don't justify it. I'm not a saint. I do shitty things sometimes because I'm cheap. That's the way it is.
Nextgrid 5y ago
You mean Kodak actually still makes something that you can buy?

ramesh31 5y ago

So long as our government refuses to materially oppose the CCP regime in any way, this will continue to be the correct move for corporations. Generate some bad press in the West, maybe be targeted with a half hearted slacktivist hashtag "boycott" that will be forgotten in a week, and in return for kissing the ring maintain access to a market of over a billion other consumers. It's a no-brainer.

torstenvl 5y ago
I think you're getting downvoted because people don't want what you're saying to be true, not because anyone thinks it's actually false. Unfortunately, the U.S. has lost sight of the fact that you get what you incentivize. I am upset at Kodak for this, but it was a rational decision given the incentive structure.
- deltasixeight 5y ago
  The US government doesn't incentivize companies in this way. Mostly the US government creates incentives related to: - Economic policy - Environmental policy - Public Health Economic sanctions aren't done to incentivize companies. They are done to impose political will and they are usually done on countries that have little business influence. Generally, International Politics are never are a part of "incentives." For international politics you and I are the incentive. If you refuse to buy a product because the company doesn't align with your viewpoint of international politics, then you have created an incentive.
deltasixeight 5y ago
The US government refuses to materially oppose the CCP regime in any way BECAUSE of corporations. Corporations have more influence on daily life and government policy than anything else out there. Part of the "correct move" by corporations is to influence this policy to allow corporations to profit off of China. Also logistically given globalization if China was actually boycotted it would do a lot of collateral damage in addition to intended damages.

LocalH 5y ago

Kodak matters? I figured they'd gone the way of RCA and Westinghouse

beezischillin 5y ago
Last I heard of them was when they offered to help manufacture vaccines last year, but I haven’t really seen them around in the consumer space for ages. Perhaps they do industrial manufacturing?
nineteen999 5y ago
They filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. Good article on the missteps they made during the start of the digital photography age is here: https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technology https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technolo...
villgax 5y ago
Patents I guess

nielsbot 5y ago

So, can we see the photo? Now I want to see it.

villgax 5y ago

Didn't exactly expect a dead company to have a spine.

spacecadet1900 5y ago

Absolutely sickening groveling. American companies need to uphold American values. Global capitalism lets them cater to the worst actors.

native_samples 5y ago
This is hardly the fault of global capitalism, given that China is a communist country, that western culture is also quite clear that corporations may not fight back against abuses of government power. We expect companies to kneel before our own governments, we cannot therefore be upset when they kneel for all governments.
- deltasixeight 5y ago
  Corporations kneel to short term profit. Thus they will kneel to anything if it means increasing short term profit. Any company that gets political, does so as a means of increasing or defending short term profits. It's how capitalism works. Corporations are just brainless cogs with the one task of increasing short term profits. Kodak is sort of in a tough situation here.

peanut_worm 5y ago

Surprised Kodak hasn’t gone out of business yet. Spineless.

rayiner 5y ago

The spineless groveling at the feet of the CCP candidly reveals how a significant portion of our corporate executives are gutless wimps.

Proven 5y ago

"Koadk deletes Xinjiang photo from Instagram, wows to 'disrespect Chinese citizens'"

_imnothere 5y ago

Okay, nice censorship, now someone please post the deleted photo to f* em', thanks.