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

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 226 posts

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

#31

Post by filoleg »

fouc wrote: post #23
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..

Well, that just makes it sound like iPhones sold in China were vulnerable for penetration by Chinese authorities because the decryption keys for those were stored in China, not that iPhones overall were vulnerable. Which makes that whole argument by Barr very weak.

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

#33

Post by watertom »

Most of these are publicly traded companies. They aren't owned by the U.S. government.

Companies will act in the best interests of the company and only it's largest shareholders.

U.S. citizens need to get it through their heads that they can't count on companies to be patriotic.

Republicans are selling out the U.S. to corporations, but they have this false notion that corporations are loyal to a government for some stupid reason.

We'll unless they are Chinese companies, because all Chinese companies are partially owned by the Chinese Government so they are loyal to China, or else.

IBM cooperated with Nazi Germany, as did GM, Ford and dupont, etc. GM and Ford were dragging their feet converting factories in the U.S. for war production, but they did so willingly in Germany.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/n...

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

#34

Post by jbob2000 »

watertom wrote: post #33

Most of these are publicly traded companies. They aren't owned by the U.S. government. Companies will act in the best interests of the company and only it's largest shareholders. U.S. citizens need to get it through their heads that they can't count on companies to be patriotic. Republicans are selling out the U.S. to corporations, but they have this false notion that corporations are loyal to a government for some s…

Publicly traded companies wouldn't exist given Chinese government rule. It is a short term interest to support that government, when long term, it could ultimately lead to the shareholder's removal or dilution by the government.

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

#35

Post by vmception »

blaser-waffle wrote: post #15
tomp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, if you think you’re not in a Cold War while the other guy thinks you are. Before you realize it, it’s already too late.

To be clear, the Chinese plainly think the US is a rival, and have been pushing on things harder than usual to test what the global response is.

US leaders need to make it clear how they expect Americans and American countries (edit: I meant companies) to act, via new and existing legislation and orders.

Absent that, the incentives just aren't there. There is a way to do business/life in China where you aren’t exposed to the things we disagree about with China, and its also now a very large market based economy with all the trappings and comforts of being rich in the west....

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

#36

Post by mikece »

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.”

Meanwhile Barr is insisting that all encryption tools, in order to be legal in the US, need to give copies of the keys to the government... you know to keep us safe from terrorists. And tax cheats. And pirated movie bootleggers.

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

#37

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

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...

Patagonia sacrifices profit for its virtuous goals.

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

#38

Post by AlexandrB »

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.

There's almost always a direct monetary benefit to staving off criticism - it keeps people that might otherwise boycott buying your products. I think this is a difference without distinction - for most companies "virtue signalling" is marketing. This is apparent from their political contributions which rarely align with their stated positions.

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

#40

Post by dx87 »

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...

I think profits are still involved, but the virtue signaling would be about preventing loss of profits. For example, reddit making its logo black, or Activision adding a splash screen in CoD saying they support black people. They don't stand to make any extra money with their change, but they are less likely to have a twitter mob call for a boycott due to not supporting their cause.
Post reply on HN