Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job

Re:Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job by chrischen on Saturday March 24, 2018 @12:37AM (#16664897)

Marriott didn’t criticize China so much as enacted policy that China didn’t feel served its political interests and policies. As a result they retaliated by denying them the market and money making opportunity that they do not have a entitlement to in the first place.

It’s no different from say US enforcing political policies such as the Nixon era drug wars against black and other poor minorities, sanctions against Russia to deter their invasion of Ukraine, US withdrawal from the TPP, denying aid in retaliation to Central American countries if they refuse to enact anti-drug law or specific policies (policies that only really serve the short term interests of the politician in office).

Denying a foreign company certain rights is not inherently any different from a preferential tariff such as the ones Trump is trying to enact. Doing so for political purposes—well that’s the whole point of the government: every move it makes is politically or policy motivated.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job by ascorbic on Saturday March 24, 2018 @02:31AM (#16665187)

This would all be fine if it weren't based on a false premise that all actions are equivalent. Proportionality matters. I may not agree with it, but if this was based on, say, Marriott issuing a statement calling for a free Tibet, then it would at least be a little more proportionate. However this was a liked tweet and an error in a web form, swiftly corrected.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Omaha man ‘liked’ a tweet, then lost his job by HillaryBriss on Saturday March 24, 2018 @07:59PM (#16669783)

But how do WTO rules and China's claim to have a free and open market fit into the discussion?

[ Parent | on HN ]