5 ms·

"We refuse to work with countries that engage in ongoing human rights abuses."

by wpurvis 6y ago

throwaway4good 6y ago
Which countries are those? And who decides which go on the list?
- adamsvystun 6y ago
  I doesn't matter much as long as there is a list. Apple can even publish it's own list, then everybody can debate if this is a good list or bad list. Currently there is no list - no discussion.
- jkinudsjknds 6y ago
  Obviously Apple. That's the entire point of taking a principled stance on something. If a country is not on the list, Apple is declaring they don't think it does human rights abuses.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Apple? Because this is a statement about their moral principles.
hakka-nyu-su 6y ago
There's no consensus among scholars about how many human rights exist, how to realize them, and how to prioritize them. For example, is healthcare a right? Is food a right? Is education a right? Is there a "right to development"?
- K0nserv 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... seems like a good lowest bar to hit, incidentally the policy being discussed in this thread was based on it
- danShumway 6y ago
  It is possible (and in fact, expected) of companies that take these kinds of pledges to have a baseline set of human rights that most people (or at least most people on Apple's board) will agree on, even if there is ambiguity around the edges. The alternative is saying, "we'll stand for this thing that we refuse to define in even vague terms, and as a result it will be impossible for anyone to evaluate whether or not we're succeeding, or even making progress." If Apple can't determine even in broad terms what is and isn't a rights violation, then their declaration is meaningless. They don't need to decide for everyone, and not everyone needs to agree with them -- it's fine for other people and companies to come up with their own criteria. But Apple has to at least some internal idea of what they mean when they say they stand for something, otherwise it will be impossible for them to build real policies around the declaration. And some of this honestly isn't that controversial among scholars. As an analogy, if I commit to avoiding stocking unhealthy products in my store, I don't need to know for certain whether or not coffee is healthy in order to say Cadbury Eggs are not -- pretty much everyone agrees on that. In the same way, we don't really need to debate whether or not healthcare is a human right to understand that forced abortions, forced monitoring and 'reeducation', and concentration camps for Uighurs are violations of their human rights.
- runbyfruity 6y ago
  "There is no consensus among scholars, therefore human rights don't exist."
strogonoff 6y ago
Couple of honest questions to you (or anyone else reading this who thinks along the same lines). Firstly, are you saying anyone who happened to be born in China is complicit in e.g. the crimes committed against Uighur population and thus doesn't deserve to be able to legally buy an Apple phone in their country? Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer? In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law. What's the benefit to be had here?
- runbyfruity 6y ago
  Apple doesn't help prop up an authoritarian regime? CCP gonna CCP, but at least Apple's hands are clean. It's not any individual Chinese citizen's fault, but they unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of an illiberal, ruthless regime.
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    So your idea is that the presence of Apple helps (props up) CCP, the absence would hurt CCP? Any details as to how? My belief is it's the opposite and I've outlined why I think Apple’s withdrawal would strengthen the regime in my comment above.
    - john-shaffer 6y ago
      If the CCP believed that Apple's absence would strengthen the regime, then they would get rid of Apple. Clearly they think it's in their best interest to have Apple around. You can disagree with them, but I think the CCP is much better positioned to know what's in their interest than we are.
      - strogonoff 6y ago
        You are granting CCP omniscience, power and integrity they don't have. Apple probably came to China to expand their market, had enough lawyers to navigate the muddy bureaucracy, CCP could block them regardless but decided to let them open shops and profit from taxes for now. Many Chinese would buy Apple products overseas in HK or Taiwan anyway; CCP is powerless to stop it and would not mind a share of the sales. CCP may be blind to Western values brought in by Apple, or discount their influence, or tolerate them for now because it is economically lucrative.

"We refuse to work with countries that engage in ongoing human rights abuses."

throwaway4good 6y ago

Which countries are those? And who decides which go on the list?

adamsvystun 6y ago
I doesn't matter much as long as there is a list. Apple can even publish it's own list, then everybody can debate if this is a good list or bad list. Currently there is no list - no discussion.
jkinudsjknds 6y ago
Obviously Apple. That's the entire point of taking a principled stance on something. If a country is not on the list, Apple is declaring they don't think it does human rights abuses.
Spivak 6y ago
Apple? Because this is a statement about their moral principles.

hakka-nyu-su 6y ago

There's no consensus among scholars about how many human rights exist, how to realize them, and how to prioritize them. For example, is healthcare a right? Is food a right? Is education a right? Is there a "right to development"?

K0nserv 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... seems like a good lowest bar to hit, incidentally the policy being discussed in this thread was based on it
danShumway 6y ago
It is possible (and in fact, expected) of companies that take these kinds of pledges to have a baseline set of human rights that most people (or at least most people on Apple's board) will agree on, even if there is ambiguity around the edges. The alternative is saying, "we'll stand for this thing that we refuse to define in even vague terms, and as a result it will be impossible for anyone to evaluate whether or not we're succeeding, or even making progress." If Apple can't determine even in broad terms what is and isn't a rights violation, then their declaration is meaningless. They don't need to decide for everyone, and not everyone needs to agree with them -- it's fine for other people and companies to come up with their own criteria. But Apple has to at least some internal idea of what they mean when they say they stand for something, otherwise it will be impossible for them to build real policies around the declaration. And some of this honestly isn't that controversial among scholars. As an analogy, if I commit to avoiding stocking unhealthy products in my store, I don't need to know for certain whether or not coffee is healthy in order to say Cadbury Eggs are not -- pretty much everyone agrees on that. In the same way, we don't really need to debate whether or not healthcare is a human right to understand that forced abortions, forced monitoring and 'reeducation', and concentration camps for Uighurs are violations of their human rights.
runbyfruity 6y ago
"There is no consensus among scholars, therefore human rights don't exist."

strogonoff 6y ago

Couple of honest questions to you (or anyone else reading this who thinks along the same lines). Firstly, are you saying anyone who happened to be born in China is complicit in e.g. the crimes committed against Uighur population and thus doesn't deserve to be able to legally buy an Apple phone in their country? Secondly, if Apple exits a non-free country, do you expect that to improve the situation? Make the country freer? In China this would leave the population to local tech, which is pretty much owned by CCP and subject to its every whim—as opposed to Apple’s cooperating to the degree required to not break the law. What's the benefit to be had here?

runbyfruity 6y ago
Apple doesn't help prop up an authoritarian regime? CCP gonna CCP, but at least Apple's hands are clean. It's not any individual Chinese citizen's fault, but they unfortunately have to deal with the consequences of an illiberal, ruthless regime.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  So your idea is that the presence of Apple helps (props up) CCP, the absence would hurt CCP? Any details as to how? My belief is it's the opposite and I've outlined why I think Apple’s withdrawal would strengthen the regime in my comment above.
  - john-shaffer 6y ago
    If the CCP believed that Apple's absence would strengthen the regime, then they would get rid of Apple. Clearly they think it's in their best interest to have Apple around. You can disagree with them, but I think the CCP is much better positioned to know what's in their interest than we are.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      You are granting CCP omniscience, power and integrity they don't have. Apple probably came to China to expand their market, had enough lawyers to navigate the muddy bureaucracy, CCP could block them regardless but decided to let them open shops and profit from taxes for now. Many Chinese would buy Apple products overseas in HK or Taiwan anyway; CCP is powerless to stop it and would not mind a share of the sales. CCP may be blind to Western values brought in by Apple, or discount their influence, or tolerate them for now because it is economically lucrative.