9 ms·

Isn't it surprising that Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard and others don't express their deep regret and support the people of Hong Kong? If they rea

by Aqua 6y ago

Isn't it surprising that Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard and others don't express their deep regret and support the people of Hong Kong? If they really stood by their values they would act in the same way as they did by supporting the BLM movement. It's just another proof that they only did that to get press coverage for being "benevolent" and not because they genuinely supported the people. Disgraceful.

baylearn 6y ago
I think Facebook, Twitter, Google, and all the other US-based platforms offering HKers a voice are next. See the recent WSJ piece: "Facebook, Twitter, Google Face Free-Speech Test in Hong Kong" (https://redd.it/hkw6yh https://redd.it/hkw6yh)
loopz 6y ago
There is healthy competition in the market place to accomodate fascism.
ubercow13 6y ago
Of course they did. That seems like the inevitable result of there being so much social pressure for them to make such statements.
anonms-coward 6y ago
Microsoft and Apple makes good money from China, so don't expect them to do anything. Microsoft Bing works and censors in China, and yet microsoft PR department is so good to keep them safe from any outrage over this.
- baylearn 6y ago
  LinkedIn also works in mainland China, but it is subject to censorship. [1] [1] https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-political-activist-censored-china-error/article/2180658 https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-poli...
baybal2 6y ago
> Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard Don't you think that C-levels of all of them were previously dying to get into China, and were ready to do anything? On my memory, Google's advisers were all over Kremlin, coaching the regime in "internet media operations" in 2005-2008, teaching them how to hound opposition online, and doing psyops style public opinion manipulation, while inventing silly lies about the nature of their collaboration. This is a close as it gets to treason.
- paganel 6y ago
  Any handy links for that Google-Russia story? It’s not that I don’t believe, because I do (IMO this is something that Google would have done) it’s just that I’m on mobile and am too lazy to search for those links myself.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    That episode has near no coverage in English, and I don't think much of coverage in Russian survived to this day. But here is it in basics: Russian opposition was completely dominating the Internet at the time, before around 2005, a complete opposite of the picture on the TV, and fake opinion polls. Kremlin was not happy, and went straight to the Internet's "kingmaker" — Google (or maybe it was the other way around?) Publicly it was to get its officers "taught" about internet media, but the writing on the wall was way more obvious. At around late 2005, Google announces them "optimising their algorithms against abuse," and within weeks opposition's websites start to disappear from Google one after another. Google obviously claim "we did not hardcode anything," but simply rearranging the word order in search was enough to expose them doing that. At the same time, we saw a wave of very weird adsense political ads on sites associated with opposition, and a wave of exhilarating pro-Putin drivel in Western media, clearly suggesting they got some Western spin masters on their side now.
    - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
      Um, I thought Yandex was the dominant search engine in Russia, not Google?
draw_down 6y ago
I’m sorry but this is childish thinking. These companies do not have whatever values you are attempting to impute to them, they just don’t. They just make money. So they issued some statements, big whoop.
arkades 6y ago
Did you at some point think that the corporate leadership of a massive for-profit organization was going to make a public statement that was anything other than the bare minimum lip service they were required to pay in order to weather the PR storm of the day, so that they could continue doing business? The answer to that question is almost always "no," and certainly until proven otherwise. Complaining that these corporate PR statements are anything other than lip service is like complaining that the world isn't fair, or that everyone dies. Perhaps a sad truth, but one you should've figured out by the time you turned twelve. Corollary: corporations are not hypocrites, either, because corporations don't hold beliefs. They make PR statements. Their belief is "I will say what I need to in order to be left in peace to maximize profits." Any corporate leader that doesn't hold to that will be replaced by someone that does, either proximally (by the board and shareholders) or ultimately (by one day landing on the wrong side of idealogy and getting outcompeted by organizations that weather the storms more nimbly.)
- pixelrevision 6y ago
  What a wonderful world we’re building for ourselves
  - arkades 6y ago
    The world, for better or worse, will be built by the people in their private capacity, whether individually or acting in concert through government. Complaining about for-profit institutions pursuing profit is, at best, a category error, and has nothing to do with our ability to shape the world except a childish inability to separate an organization represented by people from actual people. It's like making a pool in your backyard and complaining it's a bad place to jog. That's not what it's for. Private for-profit entities aren't for public policy, or for moral leadership. They're for taking money and giving you widgets. If there's a manner in which their doing so runs contrary to desired public policy, that's a government and regulatory issue. That they've managed to somehow convince you they're "people"/"sentient" adequately enough for you to criticize their moral stance is an astounding success of marketing and branding. Because it takes a lot of marketing to convince people that widget-making is anything other than widget-making, for good or for ill.
BurningFrog 6y ago
People do things that benefit them, and avoid doing things that harm them. They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments. Our brains are very good at coming up with those. Once you understand and accept this, you can process the world on a higher level. The hardest part is seeing when you do this yourself.
- hoophoop 6y ago
  Let's stop with the performative cynicism on HN. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that (mentally healthy) humans are pretty capable of empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy > They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments You are claiming that selfishness is the only driver but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning goes both ways. Besides, why do you refer to people as "they"? Are you a bot?
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    I agree that humans have a lot of empathy, and that selfishness is far from our only driver.
  - Analemma_ 6y ago
    Humans can have empathy. Publicly-traded corporations cannot.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  The book to read to learn about this is "The Elephant in the Brain". https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8K4G9G/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8K4G9G/
jpgreens 6y ago
This is not surprising at all. BLM is a neomarxist movement which is ideologically aligned with the CCP. The fact that all these companies are expressing support for BLM is absolutely terrifying and shows how much power this new neomarxist movement has.
- hkt 6y ago
  I don't think wanting black people to not get regularly murdered by the police is marxism, per se. Neither is being against celebrating slavers etc. Claiming the CCP and BLM are on the same page would be comical if I wasn't so sure you were serious.
  - anonms-coward 6y ago
    BLM is not a monolithic entity though, and is comprised of lots of groups pushing lots of agendas. e.g https://mobile.twitter.com/agavedelacalle/status/1269174574962204672 https://mobile.twitter.com/agavedelacalle/status/12691745749... . I was lucky enough to read about china in university and read 3 different books about Mao for varying perspectives. What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution. Making "anti progress" people kowotow to the revolution, taking away their means of livelihoods. Wait till these people start saying that anyone with a slightly different opinion than the revolution is a racist and needs to be "reeducatted", and long for a social credit system similar to china. The CCP also didn't start with the goal of oppressing people. It started with the goal of ending century long oppression of chinese peasants at the hands of the ruling elites. If you read Mao's little red book, he even makes some arguments against censorship.
    - iamalone 6y ago
      > What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution Certainly the Cultural Revolution was way way worse. And yes it brings to mind certain similarities for sure. Taking away livelihoods without due process is bad. Being put to death is worse. Current events do bring to my mind certain aspects of "self-criticism" [1]. As an observation, I'm thinking of the other HN front page post [2] about de-escalating. I'm not on twitter so maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Apparently if I tweet something wrong, it might explode virally and I might lose my livelihood... and the solution is to de-escalate (maybe with some tool twitter might helpfully provide) by apologizing and learning that there's still a lot to learn, to deeply admit the mistake, and listen deeply and thoughtfully, and to be reeducated on what's wrong with what I thought. Another aspect brought to mind is "struggle session" [3], "a form of public humiliation and torture that was used ... during the Cultural Revolution". Certainly what happened in CR is absolutely way worse. What happens on twitter and elsewhere online do bring to mind certain aspects I've observed... the public humiliation and shaming, mobilizing the masses online, group of people accusing another 'privileged group or person, revisiting past mistakes. There are indeed interesting similarities to compare and contrast though. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
raspyberr 6y ago
Corporations are not people. No matter how much they've tried to convince you and even gain rights over the last 150 years. They. Are. Not. People. They don't have emotions or intentions.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  Prefix each company name with "the directors of". The directors of Google have not made a statement on Uighur in China, etc.
hkai 6y ago
The folks protesting in Hong Kong are not really aligned with the views of the US Democratic Party or left-wing activists in the US. I think they are more aligned with the classical liberalism which doesn't seem to find much support these days.
doliveira 6y ago
The companies' PR statements are innocuous for society at large and are at best just thermometers for the current political climate. I don't know why people expect huge corporations to have good hearts and enact political change by themselves; that is on us.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  I don't expect or even want corporations to wade into the social and political arena, beyond doing the right thing with as little fanfare as possible. When they choose to publicly pat themselves on the back, they're begging to be called out for their inevitable hypocrisy when they fail to do so at inconvenient times, as the parent is doing. They should shut up and build things.
- kwistzhaderach 6y ago
  I don’t really think they reflect the current climate. Many of those who are silent don’t believe in these ‘campaigns’
spamizbad 6y ago
You’re asking them to support “cafeteria capitalism” Supporting BLM or LGBTQ+ Equality costs them nothing, even if you go beyond a PR gesture. You can put Black and LGBTQ people on your board and in corporate leadership positions and it will not have it negatively impact your bottom line in any measurable way. Maybe equalizing salaries would impact the bottom line but not by a significant amount. However, by (rightly) calling out Chinas numerous human rights abuses you risk being shut out from China. That directly impacts your bottom line the way putting a Black Ivy League grad rather than a White Ivy League grad on your board does not. Same logic applies regarding ICE contracts. Talking about how great immigrants are costs you nothing. But refusing to do business with alphabet agencies that terrorize and inhumanely interns them impacts your bottom line. People love to harp about how corporations are amoral and are only obligated to follow the law and create value for their shareholders. If you adopt this worldview then don’t be surprised if companies start doing business with tyrants.
refurb 6y ago
Saying they support BLM costs them almost nothing and is pretty low risk (now that’s moved mainstream). I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM. Hong Kong? That might actually require a bit of financial risk and negative publicity (at least in China). Now that real money is involved? “Our company believes the best way to support change in China is to do business there [...and keep our mouths shut].
- josteink 6y ago
  > I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM. It may have a vocal (majority?) support, but it’s still a very divisive issue. It’s probably better to not raise any flag, unless you really mean it and genuinely want to support it.
  - refurb 6y ago
    The BLM movement has gotten to the point that if companies don’t make some statement of support they are risking negative PR.
    - josteink 6y ago
      So any BLM “support” you see these days, you might as well expect be the result of tyranny? Interesting.
      - refurb 6y ago
        Huh? No, that’s not what I meant. Companies prefer to not be in the news. So what they do is seek out the mainstream and align itself to it. BLM was not mainstream 3 months ago, so companies remained quiet. Now, not showing support for BLM runs the risk of unfavorable PR. So they put out a low risk statement.
        briefcomment 6y ago
throwaway34241 6y ago
> If they really stood by their values > It's just another proof that they only did that to get press coverage I don't have any special insight into their motivations. But aren't the consequences very different? As far as I understand it, if western companies publicly go against the Chinese government the only change they will get will be being kicked out of the country and being replaced with a local competitor. I'm skeptical about corporate activism too, I just don't like the idea that intentionally picking totally losing battles should be some kind of standard. Even in a real military conflict it's reasonable to avoid that.
Ghjklov 6y ago
Not surprising. There won't be any Chinese people coming to riot and destroy their businesses if they don't. Just like how many small businesses are forced to put up signs supporting BLM and signs saying they are minority owned and asking to not be looted. Because there is an implicit threat of being destroyed if you do not support BLM.
system16 6y ago
About the only fairly large tech company CEO that has spoken out against China is Stripe's Patrick Collison: https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang=en https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang... Mind you, Stripe has no real vested interest in China so that's probably why, but at least it's something. Edit: Also, with the pace at which China is eroding Hong Kong's freedoms, the Great Firewall expanding to Hong Kong can't be that far off. Once Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are also banned in Hong Kong, maybe then they'll have an opinion.
koonsolo 6y ago
I would think that the more wealthy you are, the more ethics you can afford. Who cares about not gaining some billions when you already have multiple billions in the bank? But somehow, this doesn't seem to be the case. Is it just greed, or am I missing something?
- miles 6y ago
  And yet, virtually of those who have spoken truth to power have not been wealthy. As Einstein put it[1]: "I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?" [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=5aatXuvnGm&pg=PT37#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=...
cumcastsucks 6y ago
the left eats it up though and loves china, MSM brainwashing at it's finest.
pozdnyshev 6y ago
Just shut up. What is happening in Hong Kong is not at all comparable to the violence perpetrated towards black people by American police. Like through all of these HK protests, how many of them have died at the hands of the HK police? Zero. Most reporting on the protests in Hong Kong are simply astroturf for the ongoing trade war with China. Let's not forget that these protests are not spontaneous at all, but also being pushed and organized by Westerners.
tossthere 6y ago
> If they really stood by their values they would act in the same way as they did by supporting the BLM movement. Companies don’t have values, people have values. Many people think of companies as if they’re people because that’s how they’re presented in consumer media, and many US laws treat them as entities similar to people. But they aren’t people. The supply and logistics chain that manufactures car seat headrests and transports them from Taiwan to Los Angeles does not have an opinion or a moral stance on any issue that you care about. It’s a bunch of factories and different forms of freight transportation.
api 6y ago
BLM is American and overlaps with a lot of customers. There are more black customers and others who sympathize than racists. Hong Kong is "over there" and these companies do not have a large customer base there. China on the other hand is a monstrous potential market that they all salivate over accessing, but to do so they must suck up to the CCP. Not hard to understand...
charliebrownau 6y ago
Aqua What values ? It seems like you need to do more research off mainsteam 99% corporations support - Diversity - Open Borders - Discrination quotas - Affirm action - brainwashed "educated" uni people - Anti White - Anti free speech - Anti freedom - Pro LGBT - Pro jewish/zionism/irsael - Pro Wars with middle east - pro censorship - pro Globalism - Pro Marxism/Zionism/Commie Also trump is a jewish global zionist and fake right wing/fake "NATIONALISTS" 6.5 trillion with T for corporations/mainsteam/banks ------------------------------------------------ ================================ Platforms that censor speech:- * Microsoft * Facebook * Twitter * Google & Youtube * TUMBLR & Instagram * Pateron * Stripe * Paypal * Twitch * Spotify * Apple * Sony * pin interest * LinkedIn * Mailchimp * Wordpress * mastodon * azure * Mastercard * Godaddy * MEDIUM * Shopify * Cloudflare * pusher * WIKI * Reddit * teespring * Slack * coinbase * GOFUNDME * VISA * Square * Bitpay * ROKU * Netflix * Indiegogo * Disqus * Diaspora * VIMEO * Ravelry * Github * f-droid.org * Itch.io * Mailgun * Gumroad * YouCaring * Donorbox * Dropbox * LBRY Regards, Charliebrowau
beaner 6y ago
The corporations in these statements are guided by the people. They seem like an awfully random segment to point out for this. They haven't expressed anything because neither have your friends, Twitter, the news media, and politicians. Maybe the disgrace lies with them.
geodel 6y ago
They acted the way they did in BLM movement because of immense political pressure. And they acted Hong Kong they way did again because of immense political pressure. I see no inconsistency here that companies are responding in manner agreeable to groups holding political power in both cases.

by Aqua 6y ago

baylearn 6y ago

I think Facebook, Twitter, Google, and all the other US-based platforms offering HKers a voice are next. See the recent WSJ piece: "Facebook, Twitter, Google Face Free-Speech Test in Hong Kong" (https://redd.it/hkw6yh https://redd.it/hkw6yh)

loopz 6y ago

There is healthy competition in the market place to accomodate fascism.

ubercow13 6y ago

Of course they did. That seems like the inevitable result of there being so much social pressure for them to make such statements.

anonms-coward 6y ago

Microsoft and Apple makes good money from China, so don't expect them to do anything. Microsoft Bing works and censors in China, and yet microsoft PR department is so good to keep them safe from any outrage over this.

baylearn 6y ago
LinkedIn also works in mainland China, but it is subject to censorship. [1] [1] https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-political-activist-censored-china-error/article/2180658 https://www.inkstonenews.com/tech/linkedin-says-profile-poli...

baybal2 6y ago

> Microsoft, Apple, Google, Netflix, Blizzard Don't you think that C-levels of all of them were previously dying to get into China, and were ready to do anything? On my memory, Google's advisers were all over Kremlin, coaching the regime in "internet media operations" in 2005-2008, teaching them how to hound opposition online, and doing psyops style public opinion manipulation, while inventing silly lies about the nature of their collaboration. This is a close as it gets to treason.

paganel 6y ago
Any handy links for that Google-Russia story? It’s not that I don’t believe, because I do (IMO this is something that Google would have done) it’s just that I’m on mobile and am too lazy to search for those links myself.
- baybal2 6y ago
  That episode has near no coverage in English, and I don't think much of coverage in Russian survived to this day. But here is it in basics: Russian opposition was completely dominating the Internet at the time, before around 2005, a complete opposite of the picture on the TV, and fake opinion polls. Kremlin was not happy, and went straight to the Internet's "kingmaker" — Google (or maybe it was the other way around?) Publicly it was to get its officers "taught" about internet media, but the writing on the wall was way more obvious. At around late 2005, Google announces them "optimising their algorithms against abuse," and within weeks opposition's websites start to disappear from Google one after another. Google obviously claim "we did not hardcode anything," but simply rearranging the word order in search was enough to expose them doing that. At the same time, we saw a wave of very weird adsense political ads on sites associated with opposition, and a wave of exhilarating pro-Putin drivel in Western media, clearly suggesting they got some Western spin masters on their side now.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
    Um, I thought Yandex was the dominant search engine in Russia, not Google?

draw_down 6y ago

I’m sorry but this is childish thinking. These companies do not have whatever values you are attempting to impute to them, they just don’t. They just make money. So they issued some statements, big whoop.

arkades 6y ago

Did you at some point think that the corporate leadership of a massive for-profit organization was going to make a public statement that was anything other than the bare minimum lip service they were required to pay in order to weather the PR storm of the day, so that they could continue doing business? The answer to that question is almost always "no," and certainly until proven otherwise. Complaining that these corporate PR statements are anything other than lip service is like complaining that the world isn't fair, or that everyone dies. Perhaps a sad truth, but one you should've figured out by the time you turned twelve. Corollary: corporations are not hypocrites, either, because corporations don't hold beliefs. They make PR statements. Their belief is "I will say what I need to in order to be left in peace to maximize profits." Any corporate leader that doesn't hold to that will be replaced by someone that does, either proximally (by the board and shareholders) or ultimately (by one day landing on the wrong side of idealogy and getting outcompeted by organizations that weather the storms more nimbly.)

pixelrevision 6y ago
What a wonderful world we’re building for ourselves
- arkades 6y ago
  The world, for better or worse, will be built by the people in their private capacity, whether individually or acting in concert through government. Complaining about for-profit institutions pursuing profit is, at best, a category error, and has nothing to do with our ability to shape the world except a childish inability to separate an organization represented by people from actual people. It's like making a pool in your backyard and complaining it's a bad place to jog. That's not what it's for. Private for-profit entities aren't for public policy, or for moral leadership. They're for taking money and giving you widgets. If there's a manner in which their doing so runs contrary to desired public policy, that's a government and regulatory issue. That they've managed to somehow convince you they're "people"/"sentient" adequately enough for you to criticize their moral stance is an astounding success of marketing and branding. Because it takes a lot of marketing to convince people that widget-making is anything other than widget-making, for good or for ill.

BurningFrog 6y ago

People do things that benefit them, and avoid doing things that harm them. They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments. Our brains are very good at coming up with those. Once you understand and accept this, you can process the world on a higher level. The hardest part is seeing when you do this yourself.

hoophoop 6y ago
Let's stop with the performative cynicism on HN. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that (mentally healthy) humans are pretty capable of empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy > They motivate their selfish actions, to others but also to themselves (Motivated Reasoning) with noble sounding arguments You are claiming that selfishness is the only driver but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning goes both ways. Besides, why do you refer to people as "they"? Are you a bot?
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  I agree that humans have a lot of empathy, and that selfishness is far from our only driver.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  Humans can have empathy. Publicly-traded corporations cannot.
BurningFrog 6y ago
The book to read to learn about this is "The Elephant in the Brain". https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8K4G9G/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H8K4G9G/

jpgreens 6y ago

This is not surprising at all. BLM is a neomarxist movement which is ideologically aligned with the CCP. The fact that all these companies are expressing support for BLM is absolutely terrifying and shows how much power this new neomarxist movement has.

hkt 6y ago
I don't think wanting black people to not get regularly murdered by the police is marxism, per se. Neither is being against celebrating slavers etc. Claiming the CCP and BLM are on the same page would be comical if I wasn't so sure you were serious.
- anonms-coward 6y ago
  BLM is not a monolithic entity though, and is comprised of lots of groups pushing lots of agendas. e.g https://mobile.twitter.com/agavedelacalle/status/1269174574962204672 https://mobile.twitter.com/agavedelacalle/status/12691745749... . I was lucky enough to read about china in university and read 3 different books about Mao for varying perspectives. What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution. Making "anti progress" people kowotow to the revolution, taking away their means of livelihoods. Wait till these people start saying that anyone with a slightly different opinion than the revolution is a racist and needs to be "reeducatted", and long for a social credit system similar to china. The CCP also didn't start with the goal of oppressing people. It started with the goal of ending century long oppression of chinese peasants at the hands of the ruling elites. If you read Mao's little red book, he even makes some arguments against censorship.
  - iamalone 6y ago
    > What is happening in the US is strikingly similar to the cultural revolution Certainly the Cultural Revolution was way way worse. And yes it brings to mind certain similarities for sure. Taking away livelihoods without due process is bad. Being put to death is worse. Current events do bring to my mind certain aspects of "self-criticism" [1]. As an observation, I'm thinking of the other HN front page post [2] about de-escalating. I'm not on twitter so maybe I'm misunderstanding this. Apparently if I tweet something wrong, it might explode virally and I might lose my livelihood... and the solution is to de-escalate (maybe with some tool twitter might helpfully provide) by apologizing and learning that there's still a lot to learn, to deeply admit the mistake, and listen deeply and thoughtfully, and to be reeducated on what's wrong with what I thought. Another aspect brought to mind is "struggle session" [3], "a form of public humiliation and torture that was used ... during the Cultural Revolution". Certainly what happened in CR is absolutely way worse. What happens on twitter and elsewhere online do bring to mind certain aspects I've observed... the public humiliation and shaming, mobilizing the masses online, group of people accusing another 'privileged group or person, revisiting past mistakes. There are indeed interesting similarities to compare and contrast though. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism%E2%80%... [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23734535 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

raspyberr 6y ago

Corporations are not people. No matter how much they've tried to convince you and even gain rights over the last 150 years. They. Are. Not. People. They don't have emotions or intentions.

Symbiote 6y ago
Prefix each company name with "the directors of". The directors of Google have not made a statement on Uighur in China, etc.

hkai 6y ago

The folks protesting in Hong Kong are not really aligned with the views of the US Democratic Party or left-wing activists in the US. I think they are more aligned with the classical liberalism which doesn't seem to find much support these days.

doliveira 6y ago

The companies' PR statements are innocuous for society at large and are at best just thermometers for the current political climate. I don't know why people expect huge corporations to have good hearts and enact political change by themselves; that is on us.

caymanjim 6y ago
I don't expect or even want corporations to wade into the social and political arena, beyond doing the right thing with as little fanfare as possible. When they choose to publicly pat themselves on the back, they're begging to be called out for their inevitable hypocrisy when they fail to do so at inconvenient times, as the parent is doing. They should shut up and build things.
kwistzhaderach 6y ago
I don’t really think they reflect the current climate. Many of those who are silent don’t believe in these ‘campaigns’

spamizbad 6y ago

You’re asking them to support “cafeteria capitalism” Supporting BLM or LGBTQ+ Equality costs them nothing, even if you go beyond a PR gesture. You can put Black and LGBTQ people on your board and in corporate leadership positions and it will not have it negatively impact your bottom line in any measurable way. Maybe equalizing salaries would impact the bottom line but not by a significant amount. However, by (rightly) calling out Chinas numerous human rights abuses you risk being shut out from China. That directly impacts your bottom line the way putting a Black Ivy League grad rather than a White Ivy League grad on your board does not. Same logic applies regarding ICE contracts. Talking about how great immigrants are costs you nothing. But refusing to do business with alphabet agencies that terrorize and inhumanely interns them impacts your bottom line. People love to harp about how corporations are amoral and are only obligated to follow the law and create value for their shareholders. If you adopt this worldview then don’t be surprised if companies start doing business with tyrants.

refurb 6y ago

Saying they support BLM costs them almost nothing and is pretty low risk (now that’s moved mainstream). I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM. Hong Kong? That might actually require a bit of financial risk and negative publicity (at least in China). Now that real money is involved? “Our company believes the best way to support change in China is to do business there [...and keep our mouths shut].

josteink 6y ago
> I know my company quietly waited until it was clear nobody would bat an eye if they did a press release supporting BLM. It may have a vocal (majority?) support, but it’s still a very divisive issue. It’s probably better to not raise any flag, unless you really mean it and genuinely want to support it.
- refurb 6y ago
  The BLM movement has gotten to the point that if companies don’t make some statement of support they are risking negative PR.
  - josteink 6y ago
    So any BLM “support” you see these days, you might as well expect be the result of tyranny? Interesting.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Huh? No, that’s not what I meant. Companies prefer to not be in the news. So what they do is seek out the mainstream and align itself to it. BLM was not mainstream 3 months ago, so companies remained quiet. Now, not showing support for BLM runs the risk of unfavorable PR. So they put out a low risk statement.
      - briefcomment 6y ago

throwaway34241 6y ago

> If they really stood by their values > It's just another proof that they only did that to get press coverage I don't have any special insight into their motivations. But aren't the consequences very different? As far as I understand it, if western companies publicly go against the Chinese government the only change they will get will be being kicked out of the country and being replaced with a local competitor. I'm skeptical about corporate activism too, I just don't like the idea that intentionally picking totally losing battles should be some kind of standard. Even in a real military conflict it's reasonable to avoid that.

Ghjklov 6y ago

Not surprising. There won't be any Chinese people coming to riot and destroy their businesses if they don't. Just like how many small businesses are forced to put up signs supporting BLM and signs saying they are minority owned and asking to not be looted. Because there is an implicit threat of being destroyed if you do not support BLM.

system16 6y ago

About the only fairly large tech company CEO that has spoken out against China is Stripe's Patrick Collison: https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang=en https://twitter.com/patrickc/status/1277783532182671361?lang... Mind you, Stripe has no real vested interest in China so that's probably why, but at least it's something. Edit: Also, with the pace at which China is eroding Hong Kong's freedoms, the Great Firewall expanding to Hong Kong can't be that far off. Once Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. are also banned in Hong Kong, maybe then they'll have an opinion.

koonsolo 6y ago

I would think that the more wealthy you are, the more ethics you can afford. Who cares about not gaining some billions when you already have multiple billions in the bank? But somehow, this doesn't seem to be the case. Is it just greed, or am I missing something?

miles 6y ago
And yet, virtually of those who have spoken truth to power have not been wealthy. As Einstein put it[1]: "I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure characters is the only thing that can produce fine ideas and noble deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and always tempts its owners irresistibly to abuse it. Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?" [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=5aatXuvnGm&pg=PT37#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_9kDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT37&ots=...

cumcastsucks 6y ago

the left eats it up though and loves china, MSM brainwashing at it's finest.

pozdnyshev 6y ago

Just shut up. What is happening in Hong Kong is not at all comparable to the violence perpetrated towards black people by American police. Like through all of these HK protests, how many of them have died at the hands of the HK police? Zero. Most reporting on the protests in Hong Kong are simply astroturf for the ongoing trade war with China. Let's not forget that these protests are not spontaneous at all, but also being pushed and organized by Westerners.

tossthere 6y ago

> If they really stood by their values they would act in the same way as they did by supporting the BLM movement. Companies don’t have values, people have values. Many people think of companies as if they’re people because that’s how they’re presented in consumer media, and many US laws treat them as entities similar to people. But they aren’t people. The supply and logistics chain that manufactures car seat headrests and transports them from Taiwan to Los Angeles does not have an opinion or a moral stance on any issue that you care about. It’s a bunch of factories and different forms of freight transportation.

api 6y ago

BLM is American and overlaps with a lot of customers. There are more black customers and others who sympathize than racists. Hong Kong is "over there" and these companies do not have a large customer base there. China on the other hand is a monstrous potential market that they all salivate over accessing, but to do so they must suck up to the CCP. Not hard to understand...

charliebrownau 6y ago

Aqua What values ? It seems like you need to do more research off mainsteam 99% corporations support - Diversity - Open Borders - Discrination quotas - Affirm action - brainwashed "educated" uni people - Anti White - Anti free speech - Anti freedom - Pro LGBT - Pro jewish/zionism/irsael - Pro Wars with middle east - pro censorship - pro Globalism - Pro Marxism/Zionism/Commie Also trump is a jewish global zionist and fake right wing/fake "NATIONALISTS" 6.5 trillion with T for corporations/mainsteam/banks ------------------------------------------------ ================================ Platforms that censor speech:- * Microsoft * Facebook * Twitter * Google & Youtube * TUMBLR & Instagram * Pateron * Stripe * Paypal * Twitch * Spotify * Apple * Sony * pin interest * LinkedIn * Mailchimp * Wordpress * mastodon * azure * Mastercard * Godaddy * MEDIUM * Shopify * Cloudflare * pusher * WIKI * Reddit * teespring * Slack * coinbase * GOFUNDME * VISA * Square * Bitpay * ROKU * Netflix * Indiegogo * Disqus * Diaspora * VIMEO * Ravelry * Github * f-droid.org * Itch.io * Mailgun * Gumroad * YouCaring * Donorbox * Dropbox * LBRY Regards, Charliebrowau

beaner 6y ago

The corporations in these statements are guided by the people. They seem like an awfully random segment to point out for this. They haven't expressed anything because neither have your friends, Twitter, the news media, and politicians. Maybe the disgrace lies with them.

geodel 6y ago

They acted the way they did in BLM movement because of immense political pressure. And they acted Hong Kong they way did again because of immense political pressure. I see no inconsistency here that companies are responding in manner agreeable to groups holding political power in both cases.