6 ms·

I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive, but I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well. I want a business to focus on t

I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive, but I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well. I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. I'm weary of how all these corporate giants are coming together and trying to influence state laws after they've been passed. For two main reasons, one, I would like these companies to focus on what they actually provide, rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? For all it's horrible flaws, this was something passed by the Texas government. I can at least understand the structural justification for the law. People voted for a state representative, state senator, and a governor who signed the bill. The authority and responsibility is clear. The feedback mechanism is also clear - vote. And, I do hope a lot of them lose their seats as a result of the backlash. But again, I think the power to address this Texas-Sized problem should primarily be in the hands of Texans, rather than giant multinationals like Apple.

dayyan 5y ago
Agree.
8note 5y ago
Lobbying the government of Texas to get rid of bad policy is part of doing their one thing well, convincing people all over the palace to but iPhones. Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  As a point of order I don't think this article is advocating for lobbying as much as it is advocating a boycott slash pseudo-embargo of the State itself. To me, at least, that feels very different.
nostrademons 5y ago
The thing is that this isn't companies influencing state law. This is companies deciding who and where they do business. In many cases valued employees are going to quit and join a company not in Texas if their employer does not give them the option of transferring to a non-Texas office, so the company has a vested economic interest in retaining them and locating their offices in some place where this will not be an issue. You have every right to be an asshole, but you don't have a right to make other people put up with it. If you're going to enact something that a large swath of your population finds deeply offensive, don't be surprised if they leave, and don't be surprised if the economic activity they generate leaves with them.
- in_cahoots 5y ago
  Is this actually true though? Nobody currently living in Texas just woke up and realized that they live in a deeply conservative state. Even Austin is much more conservative than Seattle or SF. I have coworkers living in Texas and while they’re disappointed in the ruling, I haven’t heard of a single person planning on moving because of it. Most people I know moved there because of the land, property taxes, climate, etc. The politics situation is unfortunate to them, but not a defining problem. And considering these same people have the resources to get abortions no matter what (not to mention the fact that most abortions happen in low-income, marginalized communities), I don’t foresee many people leaving because of this.
  - karmajunkie 5y ago
    Austinite here, currently considering whether, when, and how to move to another state. I’m not alone.
    - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
      Stay where you are. Texas is almost purple. One of the knock on impacts of this law is to make you move.
      - 5y ago
dmd 5y ago
The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso. Everyone hates Nestle, yet they're doing better than ever. If I don't like what Amazon is doing, how can I possibly boycott a company that has meshed itself into the backbone of the internet at almost every level? As a Texan, at least I can vote in the next election. I have virtually no power over these big companies.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products. > Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso. It's definitely more broken, at least from a democratic perspective. In the free market, you vote with your dollars and shares, and those with more money have more votes (sometimes many orders of magnitude more). One man one vote it ain't.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Very few people hate Nestle. I certainly don't. Nestle is the fifth most loved brand in the world (whatever that means): https://www.nestleusa.com/media/news-and-features/nestle-5th-most-beloved-brand- https://www.nestleusa.com/media/news-and-features/nestle-5th... This idea that you can put yourself into an ideological bubble and just assume that the world outside the bubble is the same as the world inside the bubble is a form of self-deception. Most people don't hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. All these companies have huge user/customer bases. Even when the whole Microsoft is Evil thing was going on, most people were sufficiently self-aware to understand that this was a niche view. For some reason, that connection with reality became unhinged and many people really think they are in the majority now, and that's when they experience these types of coginitive shocks such as realizing that most people in Texas are pro-life or that most Brits voted for Brexit. For some, the shock of reality is so devastating that it deeply wounds them and they start massively freaking out when they see a tear in the fabric of their self-constructed reality. Note that I am not arguing against self-constructed realities. It's necessary, but you have to keep in mind that 1) odds are most people don't share your views 2) odds are that you yourself will change your mind later in life as you become wiser. 3) odds are very good that your grandchildren will repudiate your views. The number of views that we have that we can think are truly universal and will stand the test of time is very small, and almost all of them already have existed for a very long time.
VictorPath 5y ago
> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. Well you're a little late on that, business has been influencing policy since the East India company was chartered in 1600. I'm perplexed how people don't perceive business has been influencing policy for centuries until they start intervening recently for employees who are women and what have you.
jeromenerf 5y ago
> this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset Seeing things as not being political is political unfortunately. After a war ends, companies can be judged for collaboration with the enemy. Until then, it’s all grey area.
jakelazaroff 5y ago
Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies? Or contract with the police or military? Why does the issue begin and end here for so many people?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? > Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies? What do you mean? Isn't there a huge amount of energy in those areas? > Or contract with the police or military? That's not at all like the first two things you listed. Refusing to contract with the police or military (because they're the police or military) is probably a greater interference with democratic government than not siting an office in an area because you don't like the laws the legislature passed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pvg 5y ago
I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  Truthfully I can't give you a satisfactory answer because I see the situation as just too different. They decided to give additional internal employee benefits and they weren't directly going against any state laws to do this. To me at least, the situation feels different.
  - pvg 5y ago
    they weren't directly going against any state laws to do this They very much were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
dmitriid 5y ago
> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy What if a law is being drafted that directly affects their business? Should they still be quiet? Or is there a list of issues that can be vocal about, and a a list of issues they should be quiet about?
mattmoose21 5y ago
In a world of ideals, I agree with this. Just like I agree that waiters should earn a living wage and I shouldn't have to tip them. But we don't live in that world. Corporations have a ton of influence on governments and I think that singling out instances where a company is considering doing something that supports women's rights is a bit silly.
amelius 5y ago
> I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well Apple's secret power is that they integrate everything really really well. So your laptop works seamlessly with your phone, your watch, and soon Texas too.
monkeyfacebag 5y ago
Apple is the football here, not the quarterback. If Apple does anything, it will be because they are succumbing to pressure from customers, investors and employees. Corporate activism is not orchestrated by cloaked figures in board rooms; it's orchestrated by regular people who have found a more efficient lever than the legislative process. It's the ultimate expression of capitalism!
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Apple has a market cap of 2.4 trillion dollars. I don't think they're a football.
  - monkeyfacebag 5y ago
    Ok, so what's bigger than a football? A basketball? I don't really play sports.
karmajunkie 5y ago
> … rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. I hate to break it to you, but everything IS political, all the time. If you don’t believe that, it’s likely because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I take offense to this, and the assumption that I hold this view because "because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular." How do you know that? To what "rights" do you refer? I, like you, am a resident of Texas. I think for Apple to do what the article is suggesting is taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws. Politicians need the consent of the governed, and now apparently, the consent of Bay Area corporations who are decidedly progressive.
  - dctoedt 5y ago
    > taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws In other words, your right to have your representatives restrict the liberty of the rest of us Texans for no good reason. Sadly, the motto of the Texas Legislature seems to be "Local control!" when it comes to national policy — at least if the federal government is controlled by Democrats — but just the opposite when it comes to blue cities' enactment of progressive local ordinances that offend rural conservatives and/or their corporate donors. (Houstonian here, formerly a lifelong, pretty-conservative Republican.)
    - somuchsothat 5y ago
      That's exactly right. That's what 'democracy' means...you vote, and sometimes you lose, but you still have to abide by the will of the voting mass that wins. There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
      - 5y ago
gifnamething 5y ago
It wasn't an issue when the social change was about slavery, or money laundering, or privacy, or monopoly, or copyright, or tax, or employment, or environment, or immigration, or healthcare, or housing, or zoning, or transport, or energy, or manufacturing, or mining, or fiscal policy, or monetary policy, or elections, or trade, or education, or subsidies? Sorry, yes, I do think it's naive to think a business - particularly a trillion dollar omninational - can operate in ignorance of the laws and politics that their staff experience. A business is a construct of between some and a lot of individuals, not an entry in the NASDAQ. >What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? It's a false premise, since there is no additional right, but the employees are voters.

dayyan 5y ago

Agree.

8note 5y ago

Lobbying the government of Texas to get rid of bad policy is part of doing their one thing well, convincing people all over the palace to but iPhones. Mind you, representatives choose their voters to ensure that they will win elections. The power has been removed from voters hands via gerrymandering

BitwiseFool 5y ago
As a point of order I don't think this article is advocating for lobbying as much as it is advocating a boycott slash pseudo-embargo of the State itself. To me, at least, that feels very different.

nostrademons 5y ago

The thing is that this isn't companies influencing state law. This is companies deciding who and where they do business. In many cases valued employees are going to quit and join a company not in Texas if their employer does not give them the option of transferring to a non-Texas office, so the company has a vested economic interest in retaining them and locating their offices in some place where this will not be an issue. You have every right to be an asshole, but you don't have a right to make other people put up with it. If you're going to enact something that a large swath of your population finds deeply offensive, don't be surprised if they leave, and don't be surprised if the economic activity they generate leaves with them.

in_cahoots 5y ago
Is this actually true though? Nobody currently living in Texas just woke up and realized that they live in a deeply conservative state. Even Austin is much more conservative than Seattle or SF. I have coworkers living in Texas and while they’re disappointed in the ruling, I haven’t heard of a single person planning on moving because of it. Most people I know moved there because of the land, property taxes, climate, etc. The politics situation is unfortunate to them, but not a defining problem. And considering these same people have the resources to get abortions no matter what (not to mention the fact that most abortions happen in low-income, marginalized communities), I don’t foresee many people leaving because of this.
- karmajunkie 5y ago
  Austinite here, currently considering whether, when, and how to move to another state. I’m not alone.
  - thoughtstheseus 5y ago
    Stay where you are. Texas is almost purple. One of the knock on impacts of this law is to make you move.
    - 5y ago

dmd 5y ago

The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso. Everyone hates Nestle, yet they're doing better than ever. If I don't like what Amazon is doing, how can I possibly boycott a company that has meshed itself into the backbone of the internet at almost every level? As a Texan, at least I can vote in the next election. I have virtually no power over these big companies.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> The “vote” system has been broken badly, which is why the “free market” system needs to be used instead until it’s fixed - and to help fix it. And if you don’t like a company acting on some social value, don’t buy their products. > Sadly, I think the "free market" system of voting with your wallet is also broken, if not moreso. It's definitely more broken, at least from a democratic perspective. In the free market, you vote with your dollars and shares, and those with more money have more votes (sometimes many orders of magnitude more). One man one vote it ain't.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Very few people hate Nestle. I certainly don't. Nestle is the fifth most loved brand in the world (whatever that means): https://www.nestleusa.com/media/news-and-features/nestle-5th-most-beloved-brand- https://www.nestleusa.com/media/news-and-features/nestle-5th... This idea that you can put yourself into an ideological bubble and just assume that the world outside the bubble is the same as the world inside the bubble is a form of self-deception. Most people don't hate Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. All these companies have huge user/customer bases. Even when the whole Microsoft is Evil thing was going on, most people were sufficiently self-aware to understand that this was a niche view. For some reason, that connection with reality became unhinged and many people really think they are in the majority now, and that's when they experience these types of coginitive shocks such as realizing that most people in Texas are pro-life or that most Brits voted for Brexit. For some, the shock of reality is so devastating that it deeply wounds them and they start massively freaking out when they see a tear in the fabric of their self-constructed reality. Note that I am not arguing against self-constructed realities. It's necessary, but you have to keep in mind that 1) odds are most people don't share your views 2) odds are that you yourself will change your mind later in life as you become wiser. 3) odds are very good that your grandchildren will repudiate your views. The number of views that we have that we can think are truly universal and will stand the test of time is very small, and almost all of them already have existed for a very long time.

VictorPath 5y ago

> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy. Well you're a little late on that, business has been influencing policy since the East India company was chartered in 1600. I'm perplexed how people don't perceive business has been influencing policy for centuries until they start intervening recently for employees who are women and what have you.

jeromenerf 5y ago

> this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset Seeing things as not being political is political unfortunately. After a war ends, companies can be judged for collaboration with the enemy. Until then, it’s all grey area.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies? Or contract with the police or military? Why does the issue begin and end here for so many people?

tablespoon 5y ago
>> Two, Apple isn't democratically elected and I don't know if any accountability structures exist for such activism. What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? > Okay, but where is this energy when companies donate to politicians? Or spend millions lobbying for specific policies? What do you mean? Isn't there a huge amount of energy in those areas? > Or contract with the police or military? That's not at all like the first two things you listed. Refusing to contract with the police or military (because they're the police or military) is probably a greater interference with democratic government than not siting an office in an area because you don't like the laws the legislature passed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pvg 5y ago

I know this is nowadays seen as a naive or counter-productive Apple and many other US employers extended health and other benefits to LGBTQ partners of employees for a couple of decades before Obergefell. Do you think they shouldn't have?

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Truthfully I can't give you a satisfactory answer because I see the situation as just too different. They decided to give additional internal employee benefits and they weren't directly going against any state laws to do this. To me at least, the situation feels different.
- pvg 5y ago
  they weren't directly going against any state laws to do this They very much were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

dmitriid 5y ago

> I want a business to focus on their business, not on social change or influencing policy What if a law is being drafted that directly affects their business? Should they still be quiet? Or is there a list of issues that can be vocal about, and a a list of issues they should be quiet about?

mattmoose21 5y ago

In a world of ideals, I agree with this. Just like I agree that waiters should earn a living wage and I shouldn't have to tip them. But we don't live in that world. Corporations have a ton of influence on governments and I think that singling out instances where a company is considering doing something that supports women's rights is a bit silly.

amelius 5y ago

> I like Unix Philosophy ideal of do one thing, and do it well Apple's secret power is that they integrate everything really really well. So your laptop works seamlessly with your phone, your watch, and soon Texas too.

monkeyfacebag 5y ago

Apple is the football here, not the quarterback. If Apple does anything, it will be because they are succumbing to pressure from customers, investors and employees. Corporate activism is not orchestrated by cloaked figures in board rooms; it's orchestrated by regular people who have found a more efficient lever than the legislative process. It's the ultimate expression of capitalism!

torstenvl 5y ago
Apple has a market cap of 2.4 trillion dollars. I don't think they're a football.
- monkeyfacebag 5y ago
  Ok, so what's bigger than a football? A basketball? I don't really play sports.

karmajunkie 5y ago

> … rather than this modern progressive 'everything is political, all the time' mindset. I hate to break it to you, but everything IS political, all the time. If you don’t believe that, it’s likely because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I take offense to this, and the assumption that I hold this view because "because nobody’s coming for your rights in particular." How do you know that? To what "rights" do you refer? I, like you, am a resident of Texas. I think for Apple to do what the article is suggesting is taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws. Politicians need the consent of the governed, and now apparently, the consent of Bay Area corporations who are decidedly progressive.
- dctoedt 5y ago
  > taking away my right as a Texan to have my representatives craft laws In other words, your right to have your representatives restrict the liberty of the rest of us Texans for no good reason. Sadly, the motto of the Texas Legislature seems to be "Local control!" when it comes to national policy — at least if the federal government is controlled by Democrats — but just the opposite when it comes to blue cities' enactment of progressive local ordinances that offend rural conservatives and/or their corporate donors. (Houstonian here, formerly a lifelong, pretty-conservative Republican.)
  - somuchsothat 5y ago
    That's exactly right. That's what 'democracy' means...you vote, and sometimes you lose, but you still have to abide by the will of the voting mass that wins. There's something very entitled to the idea that "I support democracy as long as it advances my agenda. Otherwise (if I'm economically privileged), I'll move to California >>> Canada >>> Overseas somewhere more aligned with me."
    - 5y ago

gifnamething 5y ago

It wasn't an issue when the social change was about slavery, or money laundering, or privacy, or monopoly, or copyright, or tax, or employment, or environment, or immigration, or healthcare, or housing, or zoning, or transport, or energy, or manufacturing, or mining, or fiscal policy, or monetary policy, or elections, or trade, or education, or subsidies? Sorry, yes, I do think it's naive to think a business - particularly a trillion dollar omninational - can operate in ignorance of the laws and politics that their staff experience. A business is a construct of between some and a lot of individuals, not an entry in the NASDAQ. >What gives Apple more of a right to counter what the duly elected representatives of a state government have enacted, than the voters of that state themselves? It's a false premise, since there is no additional right, but the employees are voters.