4 ms·
> With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech". Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the gov
by latexr 1y ago
> With no rhyme nor reason beyond "free speech".
Who said anything about “free speech”? That has nothing to do with the matter. Tim Cook is not part of the government and we don’t live in the same country, free speech has zero relevance here.
> complaining from the internet peanut gallery
You might have a point if that were the extent of what I did. But it’s not, so you don’t. Even so, peanut gallery or not, I’d take speaking one’s mind about what one perceives to be wrong over simply shrugging one’s shoulders. Or worse, actively discouraging the one’s trying to do anything about it even when agreeing with the goal.
We saw a lot of that over the last attempt to pass Chat Control. Several people on HN being against it but being actively lame and saying it wasn’t worth fighting it. And then the law didn’t go through (again), because the ones who actually do something decided to ignore the naysayers who did nothing but talk down everyone’s efforts.
> instead of obeying your notions of propriety
Not my notions, his stated notions. Tim Cook’s the one who keeps touting to live by Martin Luther King’s words of “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?’”. He’s the one who came out publicly to “do his part to help others”. If Tim Cook wants to be a spineless stooge kowtowing to every bully, that’s his prerogative. But he shouldn’t pretend and hide his cowardice behind the words of someone who actually was brave enough to take a stand and face consequences.
- bell-cot 1y ago(As a generality, "free speech" is a much shorter & stronger argument than "I am allowed to criticize Tim because [logic, more logic, therefore, yet more logic, QED]"-type stuff. Not that it matters much, in the current context.) Your notions of propriety seem to involve lots of truth-telling, logical consistency, and courageously adhering to consequences of previous statements. (And smack-talking folks who don't follow those notions:) Vs. 99.9% of real-world business and political leaders might freely say that they follow such lofty principals...but actually do otherwise whenever a cost/benefit optimization suggested less-lofty behavior. In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to defy a relatively Elbonian gov't, or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone?
- latexr 1y ago> In any case, "convince Tim Cook to defy the CCP" doesn't sound like a viable goal. I agree. Good thing that is not what I’m doing. I have no illusions it’ll happen. > If you're looking to improve things - maybe focus on pushing Tim to The only way to improve things at Apple is to get Tim out of the CEO position and hope the replacement is better. > or to ease back on the huge "SE => 16e" price increase for an entry-level iPhone? I’m not going to waste my efforts on fighting a price change for a phone, especially not one I don’t even use nor want. If you care about that, you fight for it. You have my support, I won’t stand in your way or endlessly try to convince you it’s not worth it.