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

201–209 of 209 posts

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

#201

Post by euyyn »

smallnamespace wrote: post #193
euyyn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the vast majority of Spanish history, rulers viewed public dissent as tantamount to open rebellion and reacted accordingly. Same with most European countries, if not all.

And how many hundreds of years and how much blood was spilled before the principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution took root in Europe? Would it have happened faster if instead external parties tried to push it on Europeans?

The current spell of freedom in Spain isn't the culmination of some positive trend that developed through the centuries.

50 years ago we had less freedom than the Chinese have today. Then the tyrant died of old age, and the absolute monarch that succeeded him decided democracy was the way to go.

Latin American countries have the same cultural roots as Spain. They were part of Spain for more centuries than they've been independent; and even after independence the cultural exchange has been continuous. Today, some are free, and some like Cuba or Venezuela are tyrannies.

That fatalism about some cultures not being ready for freedom is too simplistic when faced with the details of reality. The Chinese of Hong Kong and Taiwan handled freedom no problem; one from within, the other "pushed on them" by the British.

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

#202

Post by int_19h »

ksec wrote: post #196
int_19h wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is still a US company at the end of the day. If it makes profits from supporting censorship in China, that makes it a US problem. One way to not have that problem is to let China has its own Apple - how's that for non-interventionism and non-colonialism?

That means every single nation would have to have its own company in every industry. No US food company would operate in Europe by this standard. And no Chinese Companies should sell anything back to US due to what you just describe.

It wouldn't have to. It would have to decide whether having its own distinct and incompatible basic values is worth it.

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

#203

Post by int_19h »

coldtea wrote: post #148
int_19h wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is still a US company at the end of the day. If it makes profits from supporting censorship in China, that makes it a US problem. One way to not have that problem is to let China has its own Apple - how's that for non-interventionism and non-colonialism?

> Apple is still a US company at the end of the day. If it makes profits from supporting censorship in China, that makes it a US problem. In what possible way does it make it a US problem? Besides, western companies make tons of money by selling arms, doing deals, and supporting all kinds of regimes, including the most abhorrent ones, from Pinochet's Chile to S.A.

Because the actor deriving benefits from those profits is in our jurisdiction.

(I also wonder if they pay US taxes off any of these profits?)

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

#204

Post by smallnamespace »

euyyn wrote: post #201
smallnamespace wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many hundreds of years and how much blood was spilled before the principles of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution took root in Europe? Would it have happened faster if instead external parties tried to push it on Europeans?

The current spell of freedom in Spain isn't the culmination of some positive trend that developed through the centuries. 50 years ago we had less freedom than the Chinese have today. Then the tyrant died of old age, and the absolute monarch that succeeded him decided democracy was the way to go. Latin American countries have the same cultural roots as Spain. They were part of Spain for more centuries than they've bee…

It seems very unlikely that Spain would have immediately adopted a stable, multiparty parliamentary democracy after Franco if it were not literally surrounded by a community of European nations that it interacted with intimately.

The right to self determination for every nation is the bedrock of the international system that Europeans created after centuries of bloody religious strife. Not sure how Hong Kong is a great example, unless you're proposing to go back to the days of colonialism and Westerners imposing their rules and values by force.

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

#205

Post by slac »

TrickyRick wrote: post #172
Jyaif wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well... But there's nothing wrong with staying in China to increase profits, it's their biggest market after all.

> Facetime is blocked in china, and I'm willing to bet that the non-sms part of iMessage is blocked as well.. Both these facts are false according to the article we're discussing.

Just got back from 9 days in China. My observation is that some services are blocked on local Sim card yet available on international ones.

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

#206

Post by Barrin92 »

icebraining wrote: post #188
jimmywanger wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And does that apply to any immoral action, or do you draw a line? You're arguing in circles here. Immoral is in the eye of the beholder, culturally, so by defining something as "immoral" you're just labelling it as "bad" and asking somebody to justify decisions. That's a loaded question and a cheap rhetorical technique. You could make an argument that since most governed people in China don't mind that they have li…

No, I'm asking under Barrin92's own moral code: if there's nothing Apple could do that Barrin92 would find morally abhorrent and worth criticizing Apple for, assuming it was legal in the other country. It's not like there are riots breaking out in the streets often That's a funny position. So if the people actually hated it, but the State's repression mechanisms kept them in line, it would be moral?

I'm saying regardless of what my or someone elses moral positions are, businesses are not the right body to carry them out.

Apple is a business, not a governmental or civic institution. And to answer your question, of course Apple could do things that I consider morally abhorrent (even if they happen to be legal), but it is the public's and the respective governments job to set out the laws, it's not the job of Apple's CEO.

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

#207

Post by TrickyRick »

nl wrote: post #181
TrickyRick wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We all remember how IBM helped implement Holocaust Do you have more details of this? I've never heard about it before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Thanks! Added to my reading list

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

#208

Post by alacombe »

RodericDay wrote: post #154
alacombe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm actually quite sympathetic to moral absolutism/moral arc arguments. I'm a moral realist. What I find hilarious is people suggesting America or most american companies are in any position to export values to anybody.

Sure, I have no problem with that. But then it goes both way, the same companies should stop virtue signaling at home every times they disagree with a social policy enactment.

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

#209

Post by biggerbistro »

coldtea wrote: post #194
biggerbistro wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And blacks were clearly against apartheid and fighting fiercely for decades. Have you talked to many locals in China and found out they were against their regime? No, they were all killed decades ago. Why does it matter if it is black vs white or chinese vs chinese? Sounds like a double standard to me.

> Why does it matter if it is black vs white or chinese vs chinese? Sounds like a double standard to me. Because (a) the whites were colonizers, where Chinese are at home in China. And because in apartheid it was whites against blacks, whereas in China it's not "chinese vs chinese" -- chinese in general LIKE their government.

I don't think the Chinese citizens have a choice about whether they say they like their government or not. The Hundred Flowers Campaign was pretty brutal.
Post reply on HN