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

131–140 of 209 posts

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

#131

Post by alacombe »

mtgx wrote: post #119
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 f…

> Would Apple be silent if China tortured gay people, too, because of "cultural differences" They do, in Saudi Arabia & Qatar.

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

#132

Post by icelancer »

Twisell wrote: post #121
icelancer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

I call us people. You calling me serf tell much about your own mindset...

You are missing the analogy in the previous sentence to that word, which does not demean people in the least. It should tell you what I think of the Chinese government.

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

#133

Post by dragonwriter »

chii wrote: post #129
maus42 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A corporation is a moral agent I otherwise agree, but I don't know if Apple is a moral agent - that discussion will into quite complex philosophical issues. But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent.

> But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent I am not so sure that's true. If every agent is acting morally, then does the sum of those actions constitute morality? I think so. Apple has some agents who are not moral agents. I suspect that all corps are like this.

A “moral agent” is not “an agent that acts according to correct moral principles” but “an agent with the appropriate facilties that morality or immorality can be attributed to it”.

Apple certainly does have agents that are not moral agents (e.g., automatons like Siri), but for a different reason than you suggest.

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

#134

Post by millstone »

csense wrote: post #61

This is only possible because Apple has a "walled garden" app store and doesn't let people install stuff from outside it. The solution is simple: Publish an official jailbreak allowing expert iPhone users to root their phones and use third-party app stores. Then Apple's not violating Chinese law by directly providing VPN's, instead they're removing themselves from a situation where they're in a position to be capable…

Is this actually necessary? You can install a VPN profile on your iPhone by manually typing in the settings, without going through the App Store.

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

#135

Post by chii »

dragonwriter wrote: post #133
chii wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But certainly each individual person making decisions at Apple is a moral agent I am not so sure that's true. If every agent is acting morally, then does the sum of those actions constitute morality? I think so. Apple has some agents who are not moral agents. I suspect that all corps are like this.

A “moral agent” is not “an agent that acts according to correct moral principles” but “an agent with the appropriate facilties that morality or immorality can be attributed to it”. Apple certainly does have agents that are not moral agents (e.g., automatons like Siri), but for a different reason than you suggest.

> the appropriate facilties that morality or immorality can be attributed to it

i m saying that the top brass making decisions are not acting as moral agents, because they don't feel the responsibility of any of the choices insofar as it increases the profit of the company.

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

#136

Post by hueving »

olalonde wrote: post #100
balls187 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I lived in China for a few years and was surprised to find out that most people seemed relatively (if not very) happy with the CCP. What happens if you make your displeasure with the CCP known publically?

Assuming it was a rhetorical question: I am basing my observation on many private conversations I had over the years (e.g. with my wife). I think most foreigners in China would agree with this as well. In case your question wasn't rhetorical: nothing would happen. That is, unless you were a very public figure or made it your life's mission. Fun fact: China has a very low incarceration rate, about 15% that of the USA.…

>Fun fact: China has a very low incarceration rate, about 15% that of the USA. It's not like people are getting thrown in jail right and left for opening their mouth.

That's not a good comparison. You would need to compare stats for number of people thrown in jail for speaking out against the government.

The US has the idiotic war on drugs and terrible recidivism driven by bad incentives to thank for its high incarceration rate.

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

#137

Post by hasenj »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #94
smallnamespace wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.

Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there.

Or how the Arab Spring devolved into brutal civil wars.

It's not tenable to pretend that western values can be separated from western culture and exported to other cultures as-is.

It doesn't work.

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

#138

Post by sangnoir »

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…

Large American tech company leaving China is not without precedent: Google left China not too long ago and there were no shareholder lawsuits. "Fiduciary duty" is the hand-wringers' answer to difficult moral questions. It turns out those principles were not principles at all; just artful marketing.

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

#139

Post by coldtea »

_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.

>The CCP restricts free speech because it fears losing its ruling status.

And that's China's own problem (or lack thereof) as a sovereign nation, not something for Apple or the US to decide.

Not every country wants (or even works better) with a US style system, and interventionism has led to disastrous results in the not that far past.

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

#140

Post by tehwebguy »

hasenj wrote: post #137
mustacheemperor wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Free speech is not part of the cultural or political history of China And that has absolutely no impact on whether or not free speech is a fundamental human right. There's many examples of cultures with abhorrent traditions. It doesn't make them just and that's why many of those cultures reject those traditions today.

Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there. Or how the Arab Spring devolved into brutal civil wars. It's not tenable to pretend that western values can be separated from western culture and exported to other cultures as-is. It doesn't work.

> Consider the disaster that happened in Iraq when the US wanted to export democracy there.

...by force.

Post reply on HN