5 ms·

Woz supports Mike Daisey's message and says you should too

48 points by jerrya 15y ago

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago
I always feel a little embarrassed when the media quotes Woz. Is that wrong of me?
- wmf 15y ago
  At least Woz isn't talking about technical topics this time. Presumably he has plenty of experience being on the receiving end of the RDF.
SpikeDad 15y ago
So does this mean that for Woz the ends justify the means? Lying through one's teeth is a valid strategy to create a "message"? What next, Woz being a spokesperson for Google? If he thinks that the issue of Chinese workers and Apple is important, he's sinking his own ship by lending credence to a bald-faced liar.
- skilesare 15y ago
  I think he's saying the art justifies the means. Daisey created a piece of art. It is a really good piece of art and it had great success as art. He got into trouble when people started taking his art as fact and he decided to let it ride to see where it led. He may have ended up a 'bald-faced liar' but until he misled TAL he was just a really, really good artist.
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    I think he's saying the art justifies the means. As did Jobs.
- javascriptlol 15y ago
  As opposed to the lies of journalists who emphasise the wrong facts.
prodigal_erik 15y ago
I would be astonished if the Daily Show were found to be passing off bullshit as factual (not obvious hyperbole), or that their audience would forgive such a discovery. They take such glee in running clips that prove claims they've made.
DanBC 15y ago
Well, Woz is sort of right. The message - some workers in some factories are treated appallingly and that needs to stop and we can help it stop - is something that most people agree with. People are not complaining about that. People are complaining that it was used in a journalistic programme, and the he lied about the authenticity of it when asked. If he'd been honest from the start no-one would be complaining now.
- uncoder0 15y ago
  I think in 'Retraction' the This American Life[1] episode that aired this weekend does a good job of pointing this line of reasoning. Specifically the second act. [1]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    I think anyone interested in this whole matter would be well served by listening to Act 3. It lays out the facts that we know to be true, and provides the information necessary to make an informed decision as to whether or not you should be supporting Apple by buying their products: To get a sense of what really is true of Apple's working conditions in China, Ira talks to New York Times reporter Charles Duhigg. Duhigg, along with Times reporter David Barboza, wrote the newspaper's front-page investigative series in early 2012 about this subject. And while Duhigg won't tell you how to feel about Apple and its supplier factories' practices, he does lay out the options for how you could feel, in a very clear and logical way. Duhigg is also the author of The Power of Habit. (12 minutes).
    - DanBC 15y ago
      That's great, but it doesn't tell me how I should assess whether to buy from any other manufacturer. To extend into t-shirts. (Not an analogy) I'm told that a discount shop selling t-shirts for £1 is using sweatshop labour. The obvious implication is that more expensive brandnames do not use that sweatshop labour. But I don't know who audits that stuff, or where the numbers are. Can I trust, say, TheGap to make sure all workers are paid properly? It's a weird market niche that hasn't really been filled by FairTrade yet.
bebop 15y ago
The important thing is trying to get corporations, like Apple, to take charge in human rights. There is the saying "vote with your wallet" and Apple has the power to get people like Foxconn to live up to expectations, just by using their (Apple's) wallet. What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is understandable, as they have shareholders etc -. However companies like Apple do have a moral obligation to make sure that their products do not negatively impact the well being of human life, and this should be a part of Apple's business plan/strategy. I think what woz is talking about is that human rights should be included as a factor of the bottom line, and Apple should be taking charge in making this happen, lead by example. Another company that does this, is Patagonia. Their mission is: "Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis." This obviously relates to environmental concerns, however "cause no unnecessary harm" also has human elements. Personally I would like all corporations that I do business with, have this idea ingrained in their business philosophy. One can always dream.
- Cushman 15y ago
  > ... Apple has the power to get people like Foxconn to live up to expectations, just by using their (Apple's) wallet. This is a fascinating observation. Also in the news this week is what Apple plans to do with their massive profit margins-- surely one possibility is that they could ensure that the people who actually make Apple products are treated humanely. > What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is understandable, as they have shareholders etc... This is likewise fascinating-- the implication that corporations imply not only legal, but moral absolution. If I own a slave to do my housekeeping, that is clearly immoral; if I am one of a hundred thousand shareholders of an organization which owns a hundred thousand slaves, somehow that becomes simply the nature of business and not something that I have accountability for. It sounds ludicrous to say, but it is plainly true of the way we have structured our economy.
msg 15y ago
Key quote: "A lot of people are saying [about Daisey] 'Oh you didn't experience this yourself,'" Wozniak continued, "but in his style of art he's trying to help the audience experience these things. I never expected the show to be real. The 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' [the film about the early rivalry between Apple and Microsoft] was not completely accurate. How could it be? But the movie is very true in the way that matters most." What I do like about this is that you can't just dismiss an argument, or a representation, because it makes a couple of mistakes. You can usually form a model of it with the errors removed and see what's left. As an argument it can continue to persuade and compel you. What I don't like about this is that journalists are operating on the front line of history, and introducing deliberate falsehoods is like rewriting history. If they're not exposed, they might sit there, wrong, forever. Thrown into this, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and will rewrite their own reflections mentally as they recall, on the slightest provocation. So it's important to know how far to trust but verify eyewitnesses. I would put Daisey firmly in camp B, liar, and his argument firmly in camp A, truthy if not completely accurate.
lawnchair_larry 15y ago
If he would have owned up to it and said "No, it wasn't entirely real, I'm an artist", that would be one thing. Instead he denied that he made certain things up, and when This American Life asked him direct and specific questions regarding the nature of his visit, he continued to lie. Perhaps Woz didn't hear that.
talentdeficit 15y ago
Mike Daisy exploited a story about violations of human rights to benefit himself. This is not a greater good situation.
- Aqueous 15y ago
  I'm not sure that was his motivation. He seems genuinely motivated by the plight of workers in poor industrial societies. He just went about it in a way that has actually ended up hurting the very cause he was trying to help. Which was certainly a stupid thing to do. Just not evil.

48 points by jerrya 15y ago

CurtHagenlocher 15y ago

I always feel a little embarrassed when the media quotes Woz. Is that wrong of me?

wmf 15y ago
At least Woz isn't talking about technical topics this time. Presumably he has plenty of experience being on the receiving end of the RDF.

SpikeDad 15y ago

So does this mean that for Woz the ends justify the means? Lying through one's teeth is a valid strategy to create a "message"? What next, Woz being a spokesperson for Google? If he thinks that the issue of Chinese workers and Apple is important, he's sinking his own ship by lending credence to a bald-faced liar.

skilesare 15y ago
I think he's saying the art justifies the means. Daisey created a piece of art. It is a really good piece of art and it had great success as art. He got into trouble when people started taking his art as fact and he decided to let it ride to see where it led. He may have ended up a 'bald-faced liar' but until he misled TAL he was just a really, really good artist.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  I think he's saying the art justifies the means. As did Jobs.
javascriptlol 15y ago
As opposed to the lies of journalists who emphasise the wrong facts.

prodigal_erik 15y ago

I would be astonished if the Daily Show were found to be passing off bullshit as factual (not obvious hyperbole), or that their audience would forgive such a discovery. They take such glee in running clips that prove claims they've made.

DanBC 15y ago

Well, Woz is sort of right. The message - some workers in some factories are treated appallingly and that needs to stop and we can help it stop - is something that most people agree with. People are not complaining about that. People are complaining that it was used in a journalistic programme, and the he lied about the authenticity of it when asked. If he'd been honest from the start no-one would be complaining now.

uncoder0 15y ago
I think in 'Retraction' the This American Life[1] episode that aired this weekend does a good job of pointing this line of reasoning. Specifically the second act. [1]http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/r...
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  I think anyone interested in this whole matter would be well served by listening to Act 3. It lays out the facts that we know to be true, and provides the information necessary to make an informed decision as to whether or not you should be supporting Apple by buying their products: To get a sense of what really is true of Apple's working conditions in China, Ira talks to New York Times reporter Charles Duhigg. Duhigg, along with Times reporter David Barboza, wrote the newspaper's front-page investigative series in early 2012 about this subject. And while Duhigg won't tell you how to feel about Apple and its supplier factories' practices, he does lay out the options for how you could feel, in a very clear and logical way. Duhigg is also the author of The Power of Habit. (12 minutes).
  - DanBC 15y ago
    That's great, but it doesn't tell me how I should assess whether to buy from any other manufacturer. To extend into t-shirts. (Not an analogy) I'm told that a discount shop selling t-shirts for £1 is using sweatshop labour. The obvious implication is that more expensive brandnames do not use that sweatshop labour. But I don't know who audits that stuff, or where the numbers are. Can I trust, say, TheGap to make sure all workers are paid properly? It's a weird market niche that hasn't really been filled by FairTrade yet.

bebop 15y ago

The important thing is trying to get corporations, like Apple, to take charge in human rights. There is the saying "vote with your wallet" and Apple has the power to get people like Foxconn to live up to expectations, just by using their (Apple's) wallet. What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is understandable, as they have shareholders etc -. However companies like Apple do have a moral obligation to make sure that their products do not negatively impact the well being of human life, and this should be a part of Apple's business plan/strategy. I think what woz is talking about is that human rights should be included as a factor of the bottom line, and Apple should be taking charge in making this happen, lead by example. Another company that does this, is Patagonia. Their mission is: "Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis." This obviously relates to environmental concerns, however "cause no unnecessary harm" also has human elements. Personally I would like all corporations that I do business with, have this idea ingrained in their business philosophy. One can always dream.

Cushman 15y ago
> ... Apple has the power to get people like Foxconn to live up to expectations, just by using their (Apple's) wallet. This is a fascinating observation. Also in the news this week is what Apple plans to do with their massive profit margins-- surely one possibility is that they could ensure that the people who actually make Apple products are treated humanely. > What is unfortunate, and hopefully going to change is that some corporations are not interested in human rights, but instead their bottom line - which is understandable, as they have shareholders etc... This is likewise fascinating-- the implication that corporations imply not only legal, but moral absolution. If I own a slave to do my housekeeping, that is clearly immoral; if I am one of a hundred thousand shareholders of an organization which owns a hundred thousand slaves, somehow that becomes simply the nature of business and not something that I have accountability for. It sounds ludicrous to say, but it is plainly true of the way we have structured our economy.

msg 15y ago

Key quote: "A lot of people are saying [about Daisey] 'Oh you didn't experience this yourself,'" Wozniak continued, "but in his style of art he's trying to help the audience experience these things. I never expected the show to be real. The 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' [the film about the early rivalry between Apple and Microsoft] was not completely accurate. How could it be? But the movie is very true in the way that matters most." What I do like about this is that you can't just dismiss an argument, or a representation, because it makes a couple of mistakes. You can usually form a model of it with the errors removed and see what's left. As an argument it can continue to persuade and compel you. What I don't like about this is that journalists are operating on the front line of history, and introducing deliberate falsehoods is like rewriting history. If they're not exposed, they might sit there, wrong, forever. Thrown into this, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable and will rewrite their own reflections mentally as they recall, on the slightest provocation. So it's important to know how far to trust but verify eyewitnesses. I would put Daisey firmly in camp B, liar, and his argument firmly in camp A, truthy if not completely accurate.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

If he would have owned up to it and said "No, it wasn't entirely real, I'm an artist", that would be one thing. Instead he denied that he made certain things up, and when This American Life asked him direct and specific questions regarding the nature of his visit, he continued to lie. Perhaps Woz didn't hear that.

talentdeficit 15y ago

Mike Daisy exploited a story about violations of human rights to benefit himself. This is not a greater good situation.

Aqueous 15y ago
I'm not sure that was his motivation. He seems genuinely motivated by the plight of workers in poor industrial societies. He just went about it in a way that has actually ended up hurting the very cause he was trying to help. Which was certainly a stupid thing to do. Just not evil.