Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law, operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to iPhone users in China.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18020508/how-china-compl...

Which makes Apple & Google (and other tech companies) complicit with the CCP behavior for the sake of the almighty $$.

Google was the only tech company that took a moral stance and left China I thought?

It hurt their income so bad new leadership tried to get back in...

It always starts with a "new leadership"...

No matter what the PR departments of these corporations would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's always about the money. These corporations are fair-weather activists at best.

I think Larry and Sergey still basically control the thing. They both have far more money than they know what to do with. Why would they compromise that much when the money makes no difference to them?

Honestly, I didn't know that specific thing. I was speaking generally.

The first time I said it was to someone who told me that while they personally have no problem with people of other races, they could never hire someone "like that" to work and their business because the racist town they lived in wouldn't like it, and it would hurt business.

This person was totally against racism, unless it would hurt them financially.

Taking an ethical stand when it doesn't hurt you isn't taking an ethical stand.

Google did exit the Chinese market though and its stock price has since under-performed the competitors that did not.

I really wish all of Google’s and alphabet’s problems were due to their occasional principled stance.

And that is to be commended and respected

How is it ethical to deny information discovery to oppressed people?

That's called "finding a justification for unethical behaviour".

"Well overall it's better if I do the unethical thing because when you think about it REALLY it's for the best- and yes, I'll make some extra money this way, but that's unrelated to why I've searched my soul for any reason to make this okay".

Google et al aren't denying information to oppressed people. Their governments are. The companies have to decide whether they will be complicit or not.

I'm from a developing nation who has a good tech career. I give a lot of credit to YouTube and Google for that. Denying that option to me is very costly. I'd rather have a censored version to nothing. It's just a pragmatic choice. However if Google is able to arm twist the government and remove the censor, nothing like it.

If you think "the ethical thing" is to undermine governments which don't conform to our values... do you vote for the most hawkish candidate in every election? Are you joined up with the armed forces? Why not? America could bring the whole world to heel on "freedom & democracy," and yet even people who think of themselves as righteous, don't want to. Why?

Could it be that cost is actually a good argument?

Could it be that trying to impose your own system of morality on the whole world is not actually a moral act?

>America could bring the whole world to heel on "freedom & democracy"

Nuclear weapons may have something to say about that...

Which is why letting a country develop nuclear weapons is a serious thing. It’s assenting to everything they might want to do, forever.

"trying to impose your own system of morality on the whole world"

You are comically missing the point. Microsoft does not get asked to take down software from windows.

Apple and Google shouldnt have the ability to apply unilateral censorship.