Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#111

Post by forapurpose »

sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

> a particular political ideology

"Ideologies" are not equally valid; morality is a real, very serious and important thing. Some ideologies promote oppression or even mass murder. And the value of liberty is not the same as the value of Christmas discounts.

Freedom to pursue your own ideology (as long as it doesn't hurt others) is widely considered a universal human right. Let's not pretend we can't see why, even if some want to disagree.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#112

Post by Iv »

i_am_nomad wrote: post #104
Iv wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This situation underlines and ideological stance that we all take for granted but that actually went questioned in the past: That business and human rights are perpendicular issues. Actually it all started from the idea that free market causes a freer society. I think it is now clear that this causality is not true, but now proponents of unregulated free markets changed their stance to "Meh, that's the way we have do…

> My stance is that a global free-market is a good objective and should be encouraged, that borders should gradually disappear. Thankfully, people around the world are waking up to the horror of neoliberalism like yours and rebelling against it.

What I am proposing is a world where borders stop neither people, goods, information or funds. Most of the neoliberal horrors come from an imbalance of freedom between these 4 freedoms.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#113

Post by gigatexal »

Who do people think Apple is? A saint? a 501(c)? an NGO? No, they are a multi-national profit maximizing corporation that sees not capitalizing on the growing middle class of China as an existential threat. So while the restrictions that the People's Republic of China (sic) imposes on it's citizens are reprehensible it is a place where Apple must abide by the rules if it wants to sell phones and other hardware and services.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#114

Post by forapurpose »

smallnamespace wrote: post #85
_ptgt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

While you may be right about the CCP's motives, China has its own long history of political thought, including the correct role of the State and public dissent. Guess what? For the vast majority of Chinese history, rulers viewed public dissent as tantamount to open rebellion and reacted accordingly. Political systems are in part products of their culture. Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history o…

> Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China, as it is in the West.

This is not at all unique to Chinese culture - It is and has been the universal argument of dictators and oppressors worldwide. Putin uses it in Russia these days.

The claim is belied by Taiwan and Hong Kong, two indisputably Chinese places where free speech is highly valued. The idea that it's a Western value at all is belied by places like Japan, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey (until recently) and endless more nations and cultures. Protestors in Iran and throughout the Mideast and into N. Africa in the Arab Spring risked (and many paid with) their lives for it. And very rarely does anyone with a choice vote to be rid of it.

It's widely considered a universal human value, and I think the evidence is overwhelming in support of that.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#115

Post by hasenj »

_ptgt wrote: post #26
sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

Actually this much is quite reasonable.

Unreasonable cultural relativism would be something like, pretending that child sacrifice is ok.

There's no reason to believe that absolute privacy and absolute freedom are universal objective moral values.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#116

Post by icelancer »

pharrington wrote: post #53
_ptgt wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This amount of cultural relativism is silly and frankly just plain ignorant. China doesn't restrict free speech for cultural reasons. The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

The argument isn't that the lack of political freedom in China is tolerable because that's just how Chinese culture is, but rather that corporations must not be the ones deciding which laws are applicable where.

>corporations must not be the ones deciding which laws are applicable where.

This is literally restating this:

>the lack of political freedom in China is tolerable because that's just how Chinese culture is

Who decides when and where it is okay to disobey laws that restrict freedom/privacy? If not the modern day multi-nation states of corporations, who? Serfs?

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#117

Post by icelancer »

prewett wrote: post #93

Is this a news piece or an opinion piece? The article is terrible. Apple has two choices: comply with the laws of China when operating in China or not operate in China. They can refuse to comply on principle, get kicked out of China, and get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty. They can use all available means (none) to fight it. Or they can obey the laws of the country they are operating in. I be…

>get sued by their shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty

This canard is never an inviolate rule on how large corporations act. Each company acts differently in regards to so-called "fiduciary duty." Not all must maximize all opportunity to make money by sacrificing everything.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#118

Post by hasenj »

qyv wrote: post #88
sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

Apple is free to this move for business reasons, that is certainly true. But they can no longer also claim the moral high ground as a defender of personal liberty. Human rights do not stop at international borders. They cannot have it both ways.

Apple never challenged actual law. To quote the article:

> [Timothy D. Cook] made clear that Apple would obey American law — but only after trying to shape the law.

In the case of China here, the law was already passed. Apple is just conforming to the law.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#119

Post by mtgx »

sriku wrote: post #12

Apple stood for privacy in the US where privacy is part of law. It didn't stand by privacy in China where privacy in some forms is prohibited as part of law. Asserting the US law in China would discount China's sovereignty, implicitly declaring "your principles are inferior to ours". A global company needs to be sensitive to these political/cultural differences and accommodate them. Even in the US where "privacy" is…

> So pretending that the privacy issue is one of "morality"

You lost me there. Privacy is a human right. Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" and just because it's trying to add an extra billion dollar to its balance sheet?

Now I can understand the argument that as a for-profit corporation Apple is "neutral" to the laws in various countries. But to take it much further say that privacy is not important - well, that's where I disagree completely. Some countries care about respecting human rights, others don't. That doesn't mean human rights are not important because some large economic powers don't respect them. Otherwise the US may have never abolished slavery either, if it was "all the same" and human rights didn't matter or were "relative" from the viewer's perspective.

Re: Apple’s Silence in China Sets a Dangerous Precedent

#120

Post by mtgx »

hasenj wrote: post #118
qyv wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is free to this move for business reasons, that is certainly true. But they can no longer also claim the moral high ground as a defender of personal liberty. Human rights do not stop at international borders. They cannot have it both ways.

Apple never challenged actual law. To quote the article: > [Timothy D. Cook] made clear that Apple would obey American law — but only after trying to shape the law. In the case of China here, the law was already passed. Apple is just conforming to the law.

Apple has been using privacy as a marketing tool. But apparently it will go no further than that. Privacy seems to be useful to Apple only if it can be used as a marketing tool, otherwise it's discarded as fast as some "offensive app" in the app store.
Post reply on HN