U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence” • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#21

Post by tehjoker » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #19

tehjoker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see an experiment where the united states stops killing people at the border, just letting people in prison die from COVID, and attacking peaceful protestors with military equipment. See how that works? Let us not forget the founding of the country was based on genocide and slavery. We ally with regressive states like Saudi Arabia and formerly places like nuclear apartheid South Africa. Only protests and…

Two things can be true at the same time.

If you think the government is making an argument in good faith here, I have a bridge to sell you.

EDIT: Responding below: I'm unable to parse your intention, but that's what people typically say when they want to agree but still support the thrust of USG policy.

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#22

Post by jhpriestley » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

Barr didn't seem too concerned about foreign influence when it came to a national security advisor lying to the government about cash payments from Turkey and illegal coordination with Russia.

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#23

Post by fouc » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #6

> Barr suggested that Apple iPhones “wouldn’t be sold (in China) if they were impervious to penetration by Chinese authorities.” He suggested American tech companies were imposing a “double standard.”

IIRC, last year Apple setup a server within China for holding the iCloud security keys for the Chinese-owned iPhones? Definitely some collaboration there..

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#24

Post by Consultant32452 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #21

Consultant32452 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things can be true at the same time.

If you think the government is making an argument in good faith here, I have a bridge to sell you. EDIT: Responding below: I'm unable to parse your intention, but that's what people typically say when they want to agree but still support the thrust of USG policy.

Why are you still arguing with me when I agreed with you?

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#25

Post by throwaway894345 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:15 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #13

Conveniently left out are all the Republican-friendly companies and industries which do the same (and more). Automobile, equipment manufacturers, aircrafts, fast food, clothing, sports leagues...everyone bows down to money. This is the obvious result of our capitalist system. What's the point in calling out a handful of tech companies?

Critiques of the “capitalist system” would be better if you articulated a system that worked better on balance. In other words, a system that solves for these problems, but which introduces many other, worse problems (e.g., famine, ethnic cleansing, imprisonment/execution of political dissenters, etc) is not a better system on balance. If we struggle to find such an improved system, it probably means that the current capitalist system simply needs some reform in order to optimize it—perhaps this means better regulation of the markets, more socialization in a few key areas (e.g., healthcare, etc), or reducing government corruption. This would make for a much improved conversation, IMHO.

EDIT: a lot of people seem to be taking issue with this comment, but I don’t understand the gripe. Presumably the logic is sound that critiques are more interesting if they discuss tradeoffs? Or maybe there is some obvious system that lacks all of the problems of our current system and introduces none of its own? Surely no one is downvoting this because they don’t like our current system but can’t identify a better one...

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#26

Post by dx87 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:17 PM UTC

birken wrote: post #11

Shivetya wrote: post #5

They need to be called out. The amount of virtue signaling these companies do in the US does not excuse their actions elsewhere. This is not confined to the US either, countries in other parts of the world will engage in actions for the Chinese government they would not do at home or without great public fanfare about how they are against it.

What is the difference between virtue signaling and marketing when a corporation is doing it?

I think virtue signaling would be saying something to stave off public criticism with no direct monetary benefit, and marketing would be like companies that support gay rights because it means they can sell a bunch of rainbow colored merchandise during pride month.

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#27

Post by pwillia7 » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

dx87 wrote: post #26

birken wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between virtue signaling and marketing when a corporation is doing it?

I think virtue signaling would be saying something to stave off public criticism with no direct monetary benefit, and marketing would be like companies that support gay rights because it means they can sell a bunch of rainbow colored merchandise during pride month.

What motive would a company (of sufficient size) have to signal virtue if not in pursuit of profits? Companies without an all powerful strongman on top are amoral, and primarily in the U.S. are only concerned with their shareholders as opposed to all stake holders in the chain's long term value and health.

https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholde...

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#28

Post by MR4D » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:26 PM UTC

birken wrote: post #11

Shivetya wrote: post #5

They need to be called out. The amount of virtue signaling these companies do in the US does not excuse their actions elsewhere. This is not confined to the US either, countries in other parts of the world will engage in actions for the Chinese government they would not do at home or without great public fanfare about how they are against it.

What is the difference between virtue signaling and marketing when a corporation is doing it?

Virtue signaling implies morals. Marketing doesn't.

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#29

Post by entropea » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #17

Consultant32452 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to try an experiment where China ends the ongoing slavery and genocides within its borders and let's see if there's less rage.

I'd like to see an experiment where the united states stops killing people at the border, just letting people in prison die from COVID, and attacking peaceful protestors with military equipment. See how that works? Let us not forget the founding of the country was based on genocide and slavery. We ally with regressive states like Saudi Arabia and formerly places like nuclear apartheid South Africa. Only protests and…

You bring up a very good point about Saudi. We're friendly allies and I absolutely never see the rage for them and their human rights violations that I see against China. It's almost as if there's some manufactured consent occurring.

Re: U.S. attorney general: Hollywood, tech companies “pawns of Chinese influence”

#30

Post by __s » Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 6:28 PM UTC

pwillia7 wrote: post #27

dx87 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think virtue signaling would be saying something to stave off public criticism with no direct monetary benefit, and marketing would be like companies that support gay rights because it means they can sell a bunch of rainbow colored merchandise during pride month.

What motive would a company (of sufficient size) have to signal virtue if not in pursuit of profits? Companies without an all powerful strongman on top are amoral, and primarily in the U.S. are only concerned with their shareholders as opposed to all stake holders in the chain's long term value and health. https://www.inc.com/maureen-kline/why-debate-over-stakeholde...

Some companies have real action behind their words, so while they may be saying "We're doing X" with a long term view of profits due to virtuous behavior, this should be viewed distinctly from saying "We're doing X" when there's not actually a long term strategy backing the statement