2 ms·

Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. he does MUCH MUCH MUCH worse things to enrich his shareholders than donating measly $1m to Dementia Don :)

latexr 2y ago
> Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. This is a personal donation. You can’t weasel an excuse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders¹ from it. No one has shares on his life. Tim Cook is a human being and has to answer to his consciousness too. His Twitter bio quotes Martin Luther King. https://x.com/tim_cook https://x.com/tim_cook > “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK. He also claimed in the past that ROI wasn’t his primary concern. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... ¹ And those are getting old. The guy is filthy rich and powerful, there’s no one stopping him from being ethical. He might get fired, big whoop. Makes zero difference to his ability to live comfortably the rest of his life.
- nabla9 2y ago
  This is a personal donation Cook made in Apple's benefit in the role of CEO. He would not do this if he was not Apple CEO. You can see the same in elections in the US and other countries. People in lobby groups and their lawyers give large public donations to candidates in behalf of their clients. Donation buys access. This established way to do business.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Yes, I agree with all of that. My points still stand: 1. You can’t claim a donation of personal money is a responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders don’t control your personal life. 2. More importantly, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is a bullshit reason whose only purpose is to justify unethical behaviour. If you go against your values because of money, they’re not your values. 3. Tim Cook likes to claim he fights the good fight. He’s an influential and powerful person whose actions can influence the lives of millions of people, so what he says should be compared to what he does.
    - nabla9 2y ago
      1. Is any person any less morally responsible for their decision when they work for the company or when they work as individuals. My answer is no. There is only legal and company branding decision, not moral ones. 2. Should companies and actions of their executives be treated as amoral (not having moral factor in their decision) or moral as a starting point. I think amoral. 3. Does anyone think that value statements from companies convey actual intentions? If not, why to always treat as PR and not talking points.
      - latexr 2y ago
        While I think you’re engaging in good faith, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing and haven’t been from the start. I don’t think continuing this point is a good use of the remainder of any of our Sunday’s, so I’ll just wish you a good one wherever you are.
  - archagon 2y ago
    If so, this is very much against Apple’s business conduct policy.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  if you really think TIM COOK made a private donation to Trump… I got some crypto to sell you :)
  - latexr 2y ago
    Clearly you didn’t understand the point at all and didn’t read the rest of the conversation. The matter isn’t about the reason the donation was made, but the excuse used to defend it.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      I for sure understand what you mean but is there any excuse Tim could make that would be “acceptable”? We all know why he made tbe donation and any excuse we know is a lie. perhaps a better lie would have been “better” but nonetheless in the end a lie is a lie
      - latexr 2y ago
        I’m not concerned with Tim Cook’s excuses, I’m referring to excuses other people make to defend the behaviour. As far as I can see Tim Cook didn’t give any reason for the donation, it’s everyone else coming up with something, including the crummy and tired “obligation to shareholders”.

latexr 2y ago

> Tim Cook is a CEO and he answers to the shareholders. This is a personal donation. You can’t weasel an excuse of fiduciary responsibility to shareholders¹ from it. No one has shares on his life. Tim Cook is a human being and has to answer to his consciousness too. His Twitter bio quotes Martin Luther King. https://x.com/tim_cook https://x.com/tim_cook > “Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'” - MLK. He also claimed in the past that ROI wasn’t his primary concern. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim-cook-doesnt-care-about-the-bloody-roi/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2014/03/07/why-tim... ¹ And those are getting old. The guy is filthy rich and powerful, there’s no one stopping him from being ethical. He might get fired, big whoop. Makes zero difference to his ability to live comfortably the rest of his life.

nabla9 2y ago
This is a personal donation Cook made in Apple's benefit in the role of CEO. He would not do this if he was not Apple CEO. You can see the same in elections in the US and other countries. People in lobby groups and their lawyers give large public donations to candidates in behalf of their clients. Donation buys access. This established way to do business.
- latexr 2y ago
  Yes, I agree with all of that. My points still stand: 1. You can’t claim a donation of personal money is a responsibility to shareholders. Shareholders don’t control your personal life. 2. More importantly, fiduciary responsibility to shareholders is a bullshit reason whose only purpose is to justify unethical behaviour. If you go against your values because of money, they’re not your values. 3. Tim Cook likes to claim he fights the good fight. He’s an influential and powerful person whose actions can influence the lives of millions of people, so what he says should be compared to what he does.
  - nabla9 2y ago
    1. Is any person any less morally responsible for their decision when they work for the company or when they work as individuals. My answer is no. There is only legal and company branding decision, not moral ones. 2. Should companies and actions of their executives be treated as amoral (not having moral factor in their decision) or moral as a starting point. I think amoral. 3. Does anyone think that value statements from companies convey actual intentions? If not, why to always treat as PR and not talking points.
    - latexr 2y ago
      While I think you’re engaging in good faith, I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing and haven’t been from the start. I don’t think continuing this point is a good use of the remainder of any of our Sunday’s, so I’ll just wish you a good one wherever you are.
- archagon 2y ago
  If so, this is very much against Apple’s business conduct policy.
bdangubic 2y ago
if you really think TIM COOK made a private donation to Trump… I got some crypto to sell you :)
- latexr 2y ago
  Clearly you didn’t understand the point at all and didn’t read the rest of the conversation. The matter isn’t about the reason the donation was made, but the excuse used to defend it.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    I for sure understand what you mean but is there any excuse Tim could make that would be “acceptable”? We all know why he made tbe donation and any excuse we know is a lie. perhaps a better lie would have been “better” but nonetheless in the end a lie is a lie
    - latexr 2y ago
      I’m not concerned with Tim Cook’s excuses, I’m referring to excuses other people make to defend the behaviour. As far as I can see Tim Cook didn’t give any reason for the donation, it’s everyone else coming up with something, including the crummy and tired “obligation to shareholders”.