4 ms·

Ok great let's be explicit and cite your own stupid words You believe that Apple should follow a law that is unethical. evidence: > I obviously don’t agree w

Ok great let's be explicit and cite your own stupid words You believe that Apple should follow a law that is unethical. evidence: > I obviously don’t agree with China’s censorship You believe this is ok though because other countries have bad laws sometimes. evidence: > they can point out lots of poor human rights abuses on our end yet Chinese companies are expected to follow our laws here too. > Our own legal system has plenty of ethical issues. We lock up almost 5x as many people per capita as China. Should they not do business with us? You also believe it's ok to do this because it's practical evidence: > Apple is just doing what any rational actor would, obeying the laws of recognized governments, and I don’t think it’s fair to expect them to do more. If the American people care that much about the free speech of Chinese citizens it’s a matter for our government, not our corporations. > If corporations stopped doing business with any country someone on HN found to be doing something unethical, we'd all go back to the economic stone age. pathetic

mattmaroon 2y ago
What’s pathetic is that you think your third grade level of reasoning on the topic makes you morally superior. It doesn’t. It just makes you a buffoon. Every government requires corporations (and thus people) to do things I think are unethical. All of them. I still expect foreign ones to follow our laws, and us theirs, because to not do so is also unethical. It’s not the role of a corporation to fight every battle. Apple shouldn’t tank a trillion dollar company (their profits come entirely from things manufactured in China) to fight removing two more apps. A lot of livelihoods in both countries might be lost over something that makes no difference, which itself could be considered ethical. The world isn’t as simple as you are. And you’d remove those apps in two seconds if Apple were dumb enough to put you in charge.
- spywaregorilla 2y ago
  > Every government requires corporations (and thus people) to do things I think are unethical. Great, we agree you believe you should follow an unethical law. > All of them. I still expect foreign ones to follow our laws, and us theirs, because to not do so is also unethical. Great, we agree that you justify it as not unethical because its the law / practical / what others do. You are justifying actions as something you think should be done, and reasoning that because you want it to be done, that it must not be unethical. Justifying evil because you think it is worth it is one thing. Concluding that evil is not evil because you think it is worth it is the scum of society.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    Again, if only the world were as simple as your reasoning ability. Removing two apps from the app store doesn’t exactly qualify as evil. China’s lack of free speech may be, but that existed before Apple and will continue to do so no matter what Apple does. It’s neither ethical nor unethical, nor is it a corporation’s job to decide whether it is. That’s the role of government. A system in which corporations can simply decide which laws they comply with would be totally broken, and so to not comply with the law is itself unethical. Apple made the ethical choice. I think our congress’s potential banning of TikTok is unethical, I don’t think Apple and Google will be when they comply. What would you have them do? Sacrifice a trillion dollar business in token protest? You’re just a keyboard warrior with no point at all who would make the same choice and justify it the same way you imagine I do if you were ever in the position they are. For the first time in 18 years I wish this site had a block feature. People like you ruin the internet. You can have the last word if you like, it won’t be worth reading Im sure, so I’m done with you. GFY.
    - spywaregorilla 2y ago
      > It’s neither ethical nor unethical, nor is it a corporation’s job to decide whether it is. That’s the role of government. The government does not define ethics. Abiding by laws does not factor into the ethics of a choice. It is up to everyone, including corporation leadership, to pursue ethical standards. You do not seem capable of recognizing that you support unethical actions. You appear convinced that choices you support are de facto ethical because you've deemed them worthwhile. This is a cancerous worldview. It's ok to say that following a law is unethical but still worthwhile. It's deeply harmful to say that it is ethical because you think it is worthwhile. Everything you're saying boils down to "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just a part of a system" as an argument that you have no culpability to your actions. Or perhaps much more toxically, "I'm a good person therefore my actions have been good". I don't really care about banning whatsapp or tiktok personally. Your rhetoric is the disgusting thing here.

mattmaroon 2y ago

What’s pathetic is that you think your third grade level of reasoning on the topic makes you morally superior. It doesn’t. It just makes you a buffoon. Every government requires corporations (and thus people) to do things I think are unethical. All of them. I still expect foreign ones to follow our laws, and us theirs, because to not do so is also unethical. It’s not the role of a corporation to fight every battle. Apple shouldn’t tank a trillion dollar company (their profits come entirely from things manufactured in China) to fight removing two more apps. A lot of livelihoods in both countries might be lost over something that makes no difference, which itself could be considered ethical. The world isn’t as simple as you are. And you’d remove those apps in two seconds if Apple were dumb enough to put you in charge.

spywaregorilla 2y ago
> Every government requires corporations (and thus people) to do things I think are unethical. Great, we agree you believe you should follow an unethical law. > All of them. I still expect foreign ones to follow our laws, and us theirs, because to not do so is also unethical. Great, we agree that you justify it as not unethical because its the law / practical / what others do. You are justifying actions as something you think should be done, and reasoning that because you want it to be done, that it must not be unethical. Justifying evil because you think it is worth it is one thing. Concluding that evil is not evil because you think it is worth it is the scum of society.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Again, if only the world were as simple as your reasoning ability. Removing two apps from the app store doesn’t exactly qualify as evil. China’s lack of free speech may be, but that existed before Apple and will continue to do so no matter what Apple does. It’s neither ethical nor unethical, nor is it a corporation’s job to decide whether it is. That’s the role of government. A system in which corporations can simply decide which laws they comply with would be totally broken, and so to not comply with the law is itself unethical. Apple made the ethical choice. I think our congress’s potential banning of TikTok is unethical, I don’t think Apple and Google will be when they comply. What would you have them do? Sacrifice a trillion dollar business in token protest? You’re just a keyboard warrior with no point at all who would make the same choice and justify it the same way you imagine I do if you were ever in the position they are. For the first time in 18 years I wish this site had a block feature. People like you ruin the internet. You can have the last word if you like, it won’t be worth reading Im sure, so I’m done with you. GFY.
  - spywaregorilla 2y ago
    > It’s neither ethical nor unethical, nor is it a corporation’s job to decide whether it is. That’s the role of government. The government does not define ethics. Abiding by laws does not factor into the ethics of a choice. It is up to everyone, including corporation leadership, to pursue ethical standards. You do not seem capable of recognizing that you support unethical actions. You appear convinced that choices you support are de facto ethical because you've deemed them worthwhile. This is a cancerous worldview. It's ok to say that following a law is unethical but still worthwhile. It's deeply harmful to say that it is ethical because you think it is worthwhile. Everything you're saying boils down to "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just a part of a system" as an argument that you have no culpability to your actions. Or perhaps much more toxically, "I'm a good person therefore my actions have been good". I don't really care about banning whatsapp or tiktok personally. Your rhetoric is the disgusting thing here.