311–320 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing "the role of a corporate". A company is what you do with it.
corporate acting above the law will quickly find themselves dissolved and ousted from the market. this is not about what people feels it's good or bad, it's about what's legal and what's not in a country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's why corporations will never help against dictatorship. They may do it if it's convenient but in the end they will prioritize money over everything else and fall in line with dictatorships. Happened during the Nazi time, it's happening in China now. Well, if you want your government to be powerful enough to enforce laws against corporations, then corporations will not be powerful enough to defy your governmen…
You might not like the (totally valid) point this comment makes but that doesn't stop it being true. Stop with the downvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They get what...30-40% of their profits from China? Here is how it would play out: Tim announces they are leaving China, Apple stock loses 90% of its value overnight, Tim is removed as CEO, new CEO comes in and says they are staying in China, Apple stock recovers 70% of its value. So ya, even if Apple isn't selected out, Tim certainly would be. You are suggesting actions that a publicly traded company just cannot mak…
>They get what...30-40% of their profits from China? ~20% in Q117, down 12% from Q116 [0]. China is their only shrinking market (at least at the granularity of data provided). [0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q1FY17DataSummary.pdf
It's a good thing, however, that they are fighting for privacy where they can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You cannot do business in China without doing what they tell you. Of course, I get that. But it's always companies like Apple that make so much noise about social justice who don't stick to their guns when China's involved.
I don't get your complaint at all. What would you rather have them do? What would "sticking to their guns" involve? Or would you rather have them not "make so much noise" about social justice?
Leave the apps in the app store and make the government make the next move.
They're fucking Apple, they can do a lot to help finally topple that mess. It's something that needs to happen in my lifetime, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a company who otherwise trumpets about social justice to be a part of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So far, most of my comments regarding those "criticizing/questioning" China stuff are mostly about the censorship/GFW, because I strongly believe the GFW is a protectionism tool to protect and grew the Chinese Internet sector. Am I allowed to have my own opinion on that matter when I am a Chinese living in China working in that sector? Maybe your definition of freedom/free speech is a pretty censored one?
> the GFW is a protectionism tool to protect and grew the Chinese Internet sector. How do you reconcile this belief with the following: 1) The GFW blocks sites and content related to dissident groups and individuals in China, such as Xinjiang and Tibetan independence groups. 2) The GFW blocks sites and content related to Falun Gong. 3) Personal VPN usage will be blocked. 4) Many foreign news sites are blocked.
2. illegal organisation by Chinese laws. btw, they spam my mobile all the time, it is pretty rude to call someone's mobile 5-6am on a weekend morning to play prerecorded message like "CCP is bad, they jailed many Falun Gong members".
3. "will" is a very interesting term. Posting here using VPN, let me know when it is actually blocked.
4. I read CNN/BBC/Foxnews quite often, they are not blocked, no VPN required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why some people think companies should be above the law. I think certain aspects of justice are above legal frameworks. For instance, slavery is wrong no matter what the law says. Companies like Apple, by lobbying the government for various non-business things (gay rights, climate change, etc.), recognize this. I think wholesale restriction and manipulation of political speech is just wrong even…
> For instance, slavery is wrong no matter what the law says. I hope you realize that you are only saying this because you happen to be born at this particular point in human civilization. For a very long time, people thought slavery is right, including the people who wrote your constitution (assuming your are from US). It is easy to say that slavery is wrong now, but not in 18th century in the US. Think of China as…
You cannot do business in China without doing what they tell you. Period. Either you do it or you leave. I work for a big company (you would all know) and we have a large business unit in China, they own 52% of it. They decide what goes in and how customers can use it. We don't get to decide anything without government approval. It's so easy to claim the West shouldn't do what the leadership of China wants in China,…
I suppose there are the questions of law and fiduciary duties. If it's the law, it's the law. In China, it's the law to remove VPN apps. I suppose it's really not much different than the laws in the US that compel companies to give the government access to my information if they request such access. It's just the law, it's not really Facebook and Google trying to screw me. All that said, I think what most posters are…
There are bad laws, and then there are bad actors refusing to disobey bad laws, which is a quintessential civic obligation in the western tradition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What happens in China now could happen in 5 years in the rest of the world. China? This has been happening in the US and Europe for years. Look how heavily censored all social media is now.
I understand that we all at HN know about the media censorship, but when you are trying to convince someone who disagrees, some evidence would be very useful.
You might say that these restrictions and censorship is okay because you agree with the given reason. But exactly like that, people in china might agree to the reasons their government is giving them for their censorship. Who is right?
What happens in China now could happen in 5 years in the rest of the world. For "security" reasons or "fight agains terrorism", while it's really a fight between those in power and those who want power :-( The need for IPFS, webRTC and other non-centralized protocols becomes more pressing every day, to defend everyone who is stuck in between.
there isn't going to be a technical solution to the problem of terrible world governments, the only real solution is going to be to change the governments.