4 ms·

Apple, and Cook in particular, is a member of groups that are actively working to stop the proposed environmental laws in the US. So yes indeed, deflection htt

Apple, and Cook in particular, is a member of groups that are actively working to stop the proposed environmental laws in the US. So yes indeed, deflection https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon...

q1w2 5y ago
This is a completely bogus claim, and you really should not be taking content from the guardian seriously - this is a great example why. Apple, in this case, is one of many companies that generally supports various lobby groups for various causes. In this article, they note that some (unspecified) groups that Apple supports oppose the current budget bill. Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. Nowhere. That's garbage reporting. The Bill is massive with literally thousands of provisions - most having NOTHING to do with climate. The title is so misleading, it's comical. Pure clickbait - and frankly, you should be more careful about posting misleading garbage like this on HN.
- pixelgeek 5y ago
  Bogus how? Sources? > Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. That is a lot of caps. Apple gives money to group A. Group A opposes a bill that contains environmental provisions. Apple will not refute the actions of group A. Who cares if group A says their objection is for other reasons. They are still trying to sink a bill with environmental provisions while saying they are in favour of said bills. Apple can't have it both ways.
  - q1w2 5y ago
    I dislike broccoli. Broccoli is a vegetable. Therefor I dislike squash. This is the idiotic argument the article is making. You are better than this.

q1w2 5y ago

This is a completely bogus claim, and you really should not be taking content from the guardian seriously - this is a great example why. Apple, in this case, is one of many companies that generally supports various lobby groups for various causes. In this article, they note that some (unspecified) groups that Apple supports oppose the current budget bill. Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. Nowhere. That's garbage reporting. The Bill is massive with literally thousands of provisions - most having NOTHING to do with climate. The title is so misleading, it's comical. Pure clickbait - and frankly, you should be more careful about posting misleading garbage like this on HN.

pixelgeek 5y ago
Bogus how? Sources? > Nowhere in this article can you conclude that APPLE specifically opposes this bill BECAUSE of the climate change clauses in it. That is a lot of caps. Apple gives money to group A. Group A opposes a bill that contains environmental provisions. Apple will not refute the actions of group A. Who cares if group A says their objection is for other reasons. They are still trying to sink a bill with environmental provisions while saying they are in favour of said bills. Apple can't have it both ways.
- q1w2 5y ago
  I dislike broccoli. Broccoli is a vegetable. Therefor I dislike squash. This is the idiotic argument the article is making. You are better than this.