I'm legitimately baffled by this sentiment, not just when it's targeted at Apple (see Blizzard). I feel like I missed a memo everyone got but me where we decided to only do business with people we agree with.

I'm getting on in my 30s and I can sense my ideas fossilizing somewhat, so I do try my best to counter that by being open to new ideas. But this one is hard to process.

What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with? Boycott them, trade with them but ignore their domestic laws if we find them distasteful, organize coups to overthrow their governments and install ones we agree with? What's the actual plan once we're done posturing?

We do business with countries where we disagree with their government all the time. The difference with China is that they have so much market power they can alter norms of free expression in our country with that power, and they're very proactive about doing so. If we want to preserve our way of life yeah absolutely we can boycott, sanction, apply tariffs or whatever until they stop doing this. There is already a gradual migration away from Chinese suppliers because of it.

Fair point.

I might disagree with your method, because I think boycotts and sanctions would only further entrench the Chinese government. They'll turn around and tell their people "See? The West only wants to keep you down!" (see Iran), rather than actually result in any positive change.

But I do fully agree that this role belongs to government, rather than expecting a corporation to enforce the moral will of a people.

which is fine if they play that propaganda game with their own. like most authoritarian regimes it'll implode eventually.

we absolutely should be selective in who we do business with as to not allow authoritarian regimes to hold power since they are dangerous to everyone around them.

boycotts and sanctions are very effective method for doing this, as long as you give them a way to actually reenter the market if they actually change.

Our market is our leverage, if you want entry to it then you need to play by our rules. if that means you need to stop committing genocide and move towards democratic rule so be it.

>What are we supposed to do with countries we disagree with?

Criticize them and slowly change public sentiment of the brand until they make better choices. This is the free market and democratic way.

I think apple superfan Gruber's idea on it is actually pretty good balance:

https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/apple_china_vpn_apps

Don't make yourself the single point of failure that the Chinese government could apply pressure on in the first place.

Make iCloud backups actually encrypted fully.

They know they are being induced to do these things, they have competitors (android) that have options to mitigate these things (side loading, actual encrypted backups) , but they don't do it for honestly suspicious or greedy reasons at this point, despite saying they're all about 'privacy' on bilboards.

I'm in my 30s and baffled by folks in their 30s who don't understand basic ethics and market forces. Businesses respond to bad PR all the time. The CCP is committing human rights violations all the time. Add the two together. It is like someone in the 1830s United States asking why slavery is bad, or someone in 1930s Germany asking why Nazis are bad - after all, slavery and the Third Reich make great businesses with superb ROI!

While I'm grateful to live in a world without Nazis (in power) or (legal) slavery, my bafflement stems from the newness of the concept of corporations taking up the role of upholding moral standards.

Up until now corporations have focused on what they do best, which is making money, and the role of government is to legislate laws that reflect the ethics and morality of its people. This has worked pretty well so far. For example, tobacco companies can't legally sell cigarettes to 12 year olds.

My bafflement is, why the change? Why must Apple, or any other corporation take up a role that previously belonged to the government?

You are right - typically government is responsible for stopping bad behavior. However, in the US especially, there is a widespread feeling that at the highest levels of government where these problems are addressed, the leadership is (take your pick) incompetent, ineffective, captured by lobbying, obstructed, too slow, or otherwise prevented one way or another from doing the right thing. The standard role bearer is broken. That's reason #1.

Corps are often very powerful and influential as well. Why shouldn't they take on a role larger than making money? If I became a corporation, do I get a free pass to be unethical, and commit atrocities as long as it's lawful? No. I would be shunned by society. Corporations seem to have long had a free pass. We should hold all entities to equal ethical standards and expectations, and respond in every way possible both as individuals and governments when those standards are violated. The laws around selling tobacco would never have happened without individual action first. Corporations need ethics too. I rather like it when our corporations follow our morals, I get tired of being cynical. That's reason #2.

Apple and other companies are global entities. Mini-states in their own right in a way. Trillion-dollar companies have enormous, global power. It may be lawful to follow a law in country X when in country Y that same law would be illegal or widely condemned. How is a government supposed to respond to global entities? Say those same tobacco companies sell to minors in another country where it is legal. There's not exactly an established legal precedent as far as I know. Is it still evil to sell to minors? Yes. Legal imbalance exists for global entities, so governments hands are often tied. That's reason #3.

So, nobody is around to motivate Apple and other corps to do the right thing. There should be consequences to abetting abhorrent laws and censorship. Everyone cheered when Apple stood up to the FBI and refused to assist hacking a suspect's phone. Everyone booed when Blizzard and other companies buckled and went along with the CCP censorship. Corps need to be punished for bad behavior (or knowingly working with or for criminals) somehow, and (here's the cynical view) they will only pay attention if it hurts their bottom line.

There was a case recently where Apple employees demanded they not hire a Silicon Valley executive because he had written and published a semi-fictional account of his time in Silicon Valley, and in it was a passage in which he made fun of women in Silicon Valley. Apple employees passed around a petition and out he was.

Simultaneously, Apple has in its ranks a famous rapper who's rapped about (and admitted to committing) violence against women, sits in a senior and lucrative role in Apple leadership.

As you can see from above, the morality always plays second fiddle to profit.

As an old hand, my personal perception and feeling on the topic of morality in corporations is, it's a trick/PR ploy to get young people to feel like they're part of something good. There are many words to describe this phenomenon and both side and naive come to my mind.

There is something about corporations that everyone forgets from time to time: corporations are not faceless entities, they are made of people. There is a CEO, a board, a handful of executives running the company. These people set the culture and direction of the company.

Some PR is a trick, absolutely. You don't have to watch Mad Men to understand that. But not all CEOs are profit-motivated robots. Tim Cook probably actually believes in promoting privacy. Satya Nadella's son has cerebral palsy. In some way, that impacts how Microsoft is ran. Leaders are humans that can be persuaded. Morality has a place, not everything is fake or second fiddle to profit.

PR doesn't exist in a vacuum. Like you said, "the young people" believe it. Those young people include leaders and future leaders and CEOs. Sometimes the PR becomes the truth. Such as when Google employees strongly protested Google's Pentagon/military contracts - and Google dropped them.

Like you said, the biggest corporations have become mini-states with enormous power. I don't know what the solution is, but assigning them, however informally, the role of deciding on ethical standards isn't a sustainable solution to government ineffectiveness. I don't disagree that the mechanisms of government are in a sorry state, but this happened _despite_ all the built in checks and balances. I worry what the approach you're suggesting is going to lead to after a few decades, considering you're using a mechanism (corporations) that evolved for one purpose; to make money.

I do see where you're coming from regarding cynicism. I don't find it ethical to allow corporations to sell cigarettes to 12 year olds in countries where that's legal, but I'd rather they be allowed to do that than to take up the role of ethical enforcers, further taking away that burden from government and reducing the pressure for meaningful reform.

I guess I also have less faith in our ethical standards than you do. We're not yet at a state where we have a coherent, stable ethical framework. Things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability. It's why I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent for other nations. I most certainly don't want to live in China or have Chinese-style laws in my country, but at the same time I'm not in a position where I can praise or condemn the Chinese for how they're doing things. Strong-arming the world into mirroring my ethical standards is only going to lead to even more division and hatred, rather than the desired result of a more ethical world. Expecting other nations to smile when we criticize them and condemning them when they don't listen is unrealistic.

As for your last point, I suppose it's the free-will of the consumer to punish corporations in the only way they respond to; their bottom line. This is effective when it comes to product and service quality, in that if you don't like it don't buy it. The corporation has to either improve its offerings or lose its market position. But the result of asking them to take ethical positions turns things into a PR game with no meaningful results other than making the public feel better. For example, Blizzard didn't internally change or have an ethical awakening after what they did. All they're going to do is invest more into PR to avoid looking bad in the future. Nothing changes. If you've had any interaction with the sorts of people that rise to senior positions in _any_ corporation you'll realize such people, like politicians, are incapable of any sort of genuine ethical conviction.

"Ethical enforcers" is putting it a bit strongly. There is such a thing as soft power, and some ideas take years or decades to percolate through a culture. Like you said

> things that were condemned 20 years ago are being celebrated now, and we seem to be in a state of constant change and instability

I wouldn't have it any other way. You can't change people's minds with force, only time and pressure. Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period. Despite that, actual civil rights ideas took decades to take hold even after the extremely violent Civil War. The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work. In fact, many of these ethical standards are encoded into laws which are in turn enforced with the state's monopoly on violence (e.g. police, military, swat).

For Blizzard and some companies are perhaps ran by sociopaths. In which case, all they learned is that they need better PR. But I'm sure some companies (aka the people leading those companies) did listen.

Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.

> Antislavery sentiment was strong and growing in the 1800s - if you lived in that time, could you imagine someone saying "I feel foolish taking stances on what is and isn't abhorrent"? Slavery is abhorrent - period.

It's tricky to judge people in the past, or to try to get a sense of how one would act if transported to that time. We're not inherently better than the people that came before us; we're still the same species. It's easy to take a stand against slavery today, but not so easy if you can see the Civil War on the horizon and all the ruin it brought. I can't judge people who adopted positions in 1830 I find disgusting today from the comfort of 2021, when I lose nothing from my position and they had everything to lose.

> The same applies to many ideas today. This doesn't mean ethics aren't worth fighting for, that you should sit back and passively watch as society decides for you that slavery-by-different-name or some other horrible idea is OK. You can't strong-arm people into believing something. You're right it leads to "division and hatred". However, mirrored ethical standards on the other hand are required for civilization to work.

I think you're underplaying the effect of "division and hatred" and where it can lead. You can't build a better world by tearing down your current world. I agree that mirrored ethical standards are required for civilization to work, but you have to strike a balance between avoiding stagnation and excessive compromise and maintaining a degree of social harmony. We're currently building a world where the ethical divisions between citizens of the same country are greater than the ethical divisions between nations in previous eras. To think this will end well for anyone is unrealistically optimistic.

> Do you really think everyone in the top ranks of a corporation is a sociopath? That's a bit cynical for my taste.

Yes it's cynical, but that's been my experience so far. I've been fortunate enough to encounter a lot of people that are genuinely _good_ and to call some of them close friends, but I never saw any of their qualities in people that occupy the c-suite. Maybe I'm wrong in my generalization, but I think it's a fairly safe assumption to make given the evidence.

In any case, I suppose I'm no longer "baffled" like in my OP. I'm starting to see the logic behind the attitude of expecting corporations to take ethical positions. Thank you for clarifying things.

Why would you do business with people you disagree with? I wouldn't knowingly serve wife beaters or pedos in my ice cream shop. Why would I trade with genocidal human rights abusers as a corporation? Cause they have cash? Come on, have some standards. Don't be an empty suit and actually believe in something.

This isn't the same situation as kicking out a wife beater or a pedophile from your ice cream shop. Your ice cream shop is a purely domestic business, and your customers are obligated to follow domestic laws, which ban pedophilia and domestic violence. While you might feel heroic kicking out a man who slapped his wife in your shop, you're probably better off just calling the police.

China is the US's second largest trading partner, and the EU's largest trading partner. If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it. Legislate laws that prevent corporations from doing business with China.

But to expect a corporation to take up the role of independently enforcing morality is uncharted territory, and I've yet to hear a coherent reason why corporations need to take on a role that until now, has been done by the government.

> If you're aware of the consequences of not doing business with them anymore and you're willing to bear the consequences, go for it.

Surely that same principle also extends to someone choosing not to do business with corporations who do business with those who do morally reprehensible things.

I assume Apple is working on getting out of this, but it’s going to take some time. Remember, when Apple started to work with China, the prevailing view was that China was going to democratize over time.

Obviously that has turned out to be completely wrong, but they can’t just ‘exit’ until they have rebuilt their supply chain.

>I assume Apple is working on getting out of this

Well Yes and No. They are bringing part of the Supply Chain out of China, slowly in the name of diversification or Indian expansion whatever people want to call it.

But they are also courting and helping Chinese companies coming out of China to set up in other places.

Basically it is the same supply chain jut not located in China. Not entirely sure this is "getting out of it".

> But they are also courting and helping Chinese companies coming out of China to set up in other places.

Presumably because those Chinese companies have the know how.

But those other places are democracies, so what’s the problem with this?

> Basically it is the same supply chain jut not located in China. Not entirely sure this is "getting out of it".

Isn’t your complaint about the lack of democracy in China? How does moving the work out of China not solve the problem?

What percentage of people who decide not to work at Apple do you think are doing it for that same reason?