Business that especially benefits the Chinese government in particular, or that supports their oppressive activities, sure I can see that. I think Google took a principled moral stance in refusing to provide search services in China when it was clear those services would have to enable surveillance. I don't think they did anything wrong having their Pixel phones manufactured in China.
For context my wife in mainland Chinese, though now a British citizen, we go there regularly and have family there. I spend money in China, and don't think there's anything wrong with myself, businesses, or 'corporations' doing so either whatever we think of the CCP. So this sort of selective virtue posturing really rubs me up the wrong way.
One of these is an economic necessity and one is not. People generally don’t have a choice but to participate in their local economy. Apple has a choice to participate in the Chinese economy. That’s the difference.
> This smacks as a pretty partisan double standard
> I have to wonder what you have against Apple
> this sort of selective virtue posturing
Can you make your point without being insulting and accusatory? It’s possible for people to disagree about this without one side being a bad actor.
Now trade boycotts and restrictions can be justified in some circumstances. I’m not a fundamentalist, but pushing the responsibility on individuals, and doing so in a blatantly asymmetrical and partisan way to push a clearly unrelated agenda (why Apple in particular, really?) is reprehensible and I make no apology for saying so.
Why is it moral for Jimmy Lai – who was born there, grew up there, and lives there – to do business there? Are his only moral choices to be unemployed or emigrate? He needs to be economically active somewhere and that’s his home.
You don’t have to have a "partisan double standard" or bias against Apple to see the clear difference between a corporation expanding to a foreign territory and a local working in his home country.