In this particular case there is clearly an alignment of interests between users and some corporations - VPN providers. At the same time there is a divergence of interests between the same users and another corporation - Apple.
Similarly, Chinese citizens surely expect their government to protect them from some actions of corporations. For instance, the Chinese government recently banned a lot of health related advertising, because apparently there was too much snake oil salesmanship going on.
The case that triggered this intervention was a complaint by the relatives of a diceased cancer sufferer who had received ineffective treatment following an advert on Baidu. However, the clinic that had advertised that treatment was a government run hospital.
I think this affair shows how complex the alignment of interests can be, even in dictatorships.
It's mind-boggling that this even needs to be stated. Of course we should not. Anyone who does needs to step back and seriously re-examine how they look at the world, because this is an intensely false presupposition.
Look at any kind of right-wing politician whose random short bio contains "Loves freedom!" or similar. In practice it translates to "loves the market economy and property rights etc", while the same person seldom sympathize with ideas of a living wage, lowering working hours etc.
Consider that both Google and Facebook have no presence in China.
Edit: (sametmax) I can't seem to reply - I think the chains too long ? Either way:
Doesn't that mean we should actually be a little upset ? Look I'm no sjw freaking out over everything, nor do I run around scrwing boycot, but perhaps just a little frustration and some constructive argument may lead someone to a better idea of how to handle/fox/or seeup with something.
God's know I don't have an answer, but it does worry me.
But...
Most people don't have the guts. Why would you expect corporation to have it ? This is the reality of the world, most people don't care about making the moral choice and will choose short term benefits. Getting sick over this is like crying because the sky's color displeases you.
Spend your energy trying to improve things at your level. This is all you can do.
"I understand why you think apartheid is best. I just personally wish you would reconsider."
Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape.
:^)
Post-apartheid: SA is mired in governmental incompetence and degradation of infrastructure. Not to mention highly elevated levels of murder and rape.
:^)
Because USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany etc all censor content on the internet.
In fact most of the world do to some extent.
I won't stand up and say I know the solution, but I certainly see the problems.
Still, interestig to see a nice quip at a completely wrong scale/context captivate such a large audience.
You are aware that that is just your arbitrary declaration of what you think their role should be, right? I hereby declare that their role is to do just that. What now?
Likewise, Apple can play China's game, or just cease to exist in china where someone else will merely take their place. The situation is exactly the same, grandma is getting mugged no matter what.
But...even worse than that though, the company has to compete with those Chinese players outside of china as well, and leaving Chinese market share out, that can make it harder....they could disappear entirely from the rest of the world as well (assuming Chinese players are competent outside of china, which admittedly hasn't been shown yet). So at the end of the day, of competition is working perfectly, those that refuse to play in a market can simply be selected out completely. Leaving only players who are willing to mug grandma...not because all the companies are evil, but because the non evil companies died off.
It isn't simple. In the long run, a political solution will be needed, we can't leave morality up to private companies that have to compete or die.
Here is how it would play out: Tim announces they are leaving China, Apple stock loses 90% of its value overnight, Tim is removed as CEO, new CEO comes in and says they are staying in China, Apple stock recovers 70% of its value.
So ya, even if Apple isn't selected out, Tim certainly would be. You are suggesting actions that a publicly traded company just cannot make. Don't try to outsource such morality to companies, they don't have the ability to act like that and exist at the same time.
~20% in Q117, down 12% from Q116 [0]. China is their only shrinking market (at least at the granularity of data provided).
[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q1FY17DataSummary.pdf
In addition, they likely have ongoing procurement contracts with some companies in China which they would need to continue honouring.
In principle I agree with you, but unless this is a founding policy of your company, your shareholders have every right to object.
But let's be fair, how many individuals, given the choice, would choose making a better world over money ? Probably not event most people in this thread. We are weak creatures.
Ha ha. You're hilarious.
On a serious note though, I don't disagree that indeed your statement above is true but because we are weak creatures, we must rely on systems. Making the world a better place is many a time correlated with some sort of validation by consumers in a market based system. I.e. solve problems/make life better or easier for someone, get rewarded by more and more patronage.
Granted, this is not always the case but majority of the time, this has been in my experience the most unbiased and reliable way to do good in the world. Simply by solving other people's problems for your and others' sustenance, you somehow also end up making the world a better place. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Making the world a better place have been done in all levels of society, for money or not.
Not really, look up fiduciary duty. When you trade publicly, you have a special form of contract to the shareholding trusts, and in turn to the shareholder.
If you breach this, you are liable for damages, and likely to be replaced by somebody who isn't going to make the same mistake.
This is a vital part of publicly traded companies.
https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578437/-The-Myth...
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
There is such a thing as fiduciary duty, but it's not related to the common usage of public companies needing to maximize profit for shareholders.
Directors and officers of Apple Inc., incorporated in California, are bound to serve in a manner such that they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders.
If the directors and officers of Apple Inc. could determine that their shareholders have an interest in abstaining from the Chinese market for ideological reasons, they could (possibly) make a decision which would not serve the financial interest of the shareholders, but I find it unlikely that their shareholders would consent to that.
It's obvious to me that remaining in the Chinese market despite the CCP's suppression of liberties is in the interest of the shareholders. It is a huge market, and the other markets simply don't care enough about this issue to stop buying Apple devices and services on account of this concession to the CCP.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
Well, if you want your government to be powerful enough to enforce laws against corporations, then corporations will not be powerful enough to defy your government.
You can't keep your cake and eat it too.