I am not saying Google/Apple is right - just pointing out that almost all of us are hypocrites at some level, some more than others.
Don't act like these services are essentials. They're nothing but tiny conveniences. And while your individual boycott won't have an impact on their bottom lines, their entire existence depends on hundreds of millions of people in your exact situation, giving in to defeatism or not even caring in the first place.
What? Why?
Smartphones are convenient, but essential? Phone calls and SMS/MMS still work without a smartphone.
There's also a problem of feasibility: Fairphone eventually conceded on their idealized fair trade product after an amazing effort. There's also world hunger and disease resulting in serious but avoidable death.
You could call this hypocrisy if you want but it's a matter of resources available to fight for these causes.
Smartphones aren't really about phone calls or sms.
The quote "None of these men care about women or LGBT unless it's legally enforced." is clearly untrue, and simply doesn't address what is a multi-faceted issue.
It's worth noting that if citizens of the US are concerned about this, then the citizens have the power - via government - to fix this by imposing trade sanctions.
Can the voting US public really make a difference to foreign policy with the UAE\Saudi Arabia?
===
There's a grey area that's worthy of discussion, but we the voting public and as voters for democratically elected governments have cracked the shits with governments and international businesses for much less than what Saudi Arabia have done as a hostile, extremist sovereign third party has achieved. The only difference with Saudia Arabia is the ridiculous amount of financial influence they hold and this blurs borders on the cost/value of morality.
Most companies are beholden to their share holders to make a profit, but at which point do write a line in the sand and say, we no longer allow money to grey the lines on what we consider morale and immoral?
===
Also consider the US voting public are losing their shit about a wall at time of writing. That's a fairly black and white concern when you consider the implications and rather obvious cost benefit (slim to none). The border wall is potentially the biggest white elephant that's gone to US policy in recent times. It's not going to work. And it's going to be incredibly expensive if it is built. Yet... a strong portion of the public still want it built. And it will be at the expense of schools, public health, infrastructure, disaster relief.
Now consider.... you think the US voting public have the collective nous to make an international impact on US foreign policy with an extremist, wealthy 'ally' like UAE\Saudi Arabia? Sincerely?
I don't have the same faith in the public hive mind as you. But... I don't have another option that can help besides publicly discussing the point as we are. For all the benefits of how much better life is for those living right now vs prior generations. We do an exceptional job at shitting in our own beds over and over again.
Edit: structure and a few words.
A more effective and simple solution is mandatory eVerify. What is the cost of illegal immigration? For example there's no study on the cost of deportations. There's about ~180k people deported annually? https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/crossing-attempts-at-us-sout...
The expense of schools has to do with the ever ballooning amount of administers, not teachers. Spending on admin increased and decreased for teachers. As of 2016 more than half of those involved in education are not teachers. Furthermore few countries outspend the US per pupil. In several states education is paid for via bonds and not out of the general fund. The country doesn't have a tax collection problem, it's got a spending problem. As long as people can vote to spend other peoples money, they will.
Yes, money buys influence. But that only goes so far in the face of widespread hostility. The "they took money from XXX" negative argument does really work if everyone hates XXX.
You are drinking up propaganda if you believe this to be true in the slightest. The US extremely rarely has a balanced budget and there is always room for politicians to take on more debt for their projects.
The entire position of AOC at this point is to give up the facade of government brining in revenue to pay for any proposals. All questions about payment are answered with whataboutism pointing at a different unfunded liability.
Neither party cares about balanced budgets. The wall, tax cuts, the green new deal, whatever do not take away funding from other programs because the federal government no longer fundamentally operates that way.
Funding is only cut for political gamesmanship at this point.
It's not hard to express your views without breaking the site guidelines. Plenty of other users have managed it in this thread. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Maybe Apple and Google are entitled to make money from Saudi Arabia's oppression of women? Once again, please make your case.
But nor do I believe that Sundar Pichai or Tim Cook were aware of this app previously or had any personal responsibility for it.
Nor do I think they should be vilified for shaking hands with MBS prior to the murder of Khashoggi, and especially not prior to the Yemeni war.
Can he really feign ignornance?
It is odd. The keep from being too meta, I pose this question (since it seems like a controversial stance): Should Google and Apple formally decline to host applications in their stores that actively assist governments in oppressing their population? This isn't a philosophical discussion about how we are already tracked by phones, or how Facebook knows everything. This app literally is built by the government to check women in, so they do not have freedom of travel.