[thegayngler]

Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a message about taking responsibility for protecting people's privacy and their data?

[westiseast]

I think because it’s pretty cheap (free) to make inspiring speeches to privileged American students about an esoteric ‘right to be human’.

Meanwhile Apple effectively withholds tax from a range of countries who would probably use that to provide basic social services to those in need of them, or runs (through its contractors) factories that withhold basic human rights from staff.

[kortilla]

Are you upset that Apple is following the law? Those countries are free to tax Apple however much they want.

[jasonlotito]

I mean, Tim Cook is basically coming out against companies that are following the law at least as much as Apple. People just don't like the way the laws are currently setup. Apple even benefited from these lack of legal grounds in the past to get through their own privacy issues[4].

And it's not like Apple is innocent here. They've done illegal things in the past that directly hurt users [1] and it's employees and other people in the industry [2]. They have a long history of violating user trust [3].

This isn't to say they are unique in this. Most large companies deal with these sorts of things.

But Apple isn't innocent. They just happen to find an area where they can claim to take the high ground because their business model allows it.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-ebooks/apple-collud... [2] https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#In-app_p... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#iPad_and... "The problem facing the plaintiffs is the current state of electronic privacy law, the issue being that there is no national privacy law that provides for compensatory damages for breach of privacy"

[pixelatedindex]

My understanding is that it's the law itself that needs to be fixed. Companies shouldn't be able to get away with billions in tax evasion.

[DanBC]

Apple would claim this is legal avoidance, not illegal evasion.

Tax law is the acts and statutes that bring it into existence, but it's also the case law that shapes it.

EU tax authorities tend to take a light touch approach - they'll tell you that they think you're non-compliant and how they want you to fix it. You can then tell them why they're wrong. They tend not to go to court against huge companies for anything other than blatant violations.

So, maybe the law is right, and Apple (etc etc) isn't following it correctly, but the enforcement of that law is wrong.

[benologist]

If Apple want to demand more responsibility from the tech industry why should it only be other companies' transgressions?

Apple just a few years ago had to tweak miserable worker conditions to reduce the suicide rate on their production lines, they don't get to dictate the narrative on where the tech industry falls short.

[pwinnski]

The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer. Apple was reportedly alone in addressing the underlying issues by increasing requirements on Foxconn and other suppliers.

Far from being an example of hypocrisy, I think this is a good example of Cook's point.

[andrekandre]

> The suicides were Foxconn employees, Foxconn being a company that is used by nearly every electronics manufacturer.

how convenient for apple... if they truly “cared” they would use their clout to improve the conditions regardless if it was a contractor or not (same goes for any large company using contractors)

[pwinnski]

I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing. Apple should... make demands on companies with which it has no relationship, and expect those companies to comply?

As I stated, Apple did insist on improved conditions at the Foxconn factories where Apple products were made. They audit the factories regularly to ensure Foxconn and other contractors are meetings the standards Apple has set for employee treatment, and report on this information annually, including dropping suppliers who fail audits.

It is not clear Apple could do more than they're doing, other than raising the standards even more. Which... maybe they should, but I don't think that's even what you're suggesting.

[benologist]

You keep describing these people as Foxconn employees, but way before that they were a decision by Apple to not complete iPhone assembly in a modern work environment where the staff are their own employees and have modern workplace safety and rights and benefits.

Instead they pursued a solution that would cost them a few $/person/day, for a phone with $100s profit per handset, and required Foxconn to create assembly lines within their budget. They're like proxy employees whose situation Apple first created and then slightly improved by demanding more stringent age checks and rest.

The tech industry's hazy relationship with employees vs contractors is something else they should accept more responsibility for that Cook neglected to mention - Uber, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, they probably have half a million contractors between them as one big circumvention of modern worker benefits and rights.

[CogDisco]

> Apple should... make demands on companies with which it has no relationship, and expect those companies to comply?

Isn't that literally the link above?

[dictum]

> that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another

This is exactly what both groups, corporate tax advocates and privacy advocates, are pointing to: the unsustainability or unethicality of the current widespread practices.

(Edit: this is getting downvoted quickly, so let me make a disclaimer — I'm not judging the soundness of the arguments of either advocates, just noting that "everybody does it" just restates their arguments.)

[the_common_man]

Some people expect one to be a saint and be totally flawless if one preaches something. They see the preachers as hypocrites otherwise. The classic "but what about ... <another unrelated issue>".

In fact, for some, even saints are not good enough. Mother Teresa gets called on her mis-deeds all the time if you point anything good about her. Gandhi gets called on for his personal relationships etc.

[maxxxxx]

I think if you preach about something you first should clean your own house. For example I would have liked Cook to address the recent keyboard problems openly or discuss the TouchBar that nobody seems to like. I feel like he is opportunistic in the sense that he talks loudly about things that are of less concern to his company and make his competition look bad. That's good business but I don't think he should get much credit for doing it. I am sure he would have no qualms about selling out his users if it fit his business.

[scarface74]

You mean by offering extended warranties?

[maxxxxx]

Extended warranty is bullshit if you have to waste time going to the Genius Bar and then having your keyboard break after the warranty. That was the minimum possible thing they could do to avoid lawsuits.

[scarface74]

So exactly what are they suppose to do about a product defect except for correct it?

[maxxxxx]

Correct it by shipping keyboards that don't break.

[maximente]

i'm curious where the line is here - for example, are those supporting action against climate change but who still have a car worthy?

[maxxxxx]

I think there is something to be said that you shouldn't be a hypocrite if you speak out publicly about something. For example it really bothers me when people like the U2 singer talk about climate change while flying around in private jets. Or people that glorify/use the military while not having served themselves or anybody in their family.

If you preach something you should make the same sacrifices you ask others for.

[arkades]

Mother Theresa's saintly work involved providing healthcare for the indigent and overlooked. Her criticisms involve withholding pain relief from those people for religious reasons.

That's not an unrelated "whataboutism?" It directly criticizes the action being praised.

(I'm not sure why the downvotes. Does this need substantiation? It was directly observed by a major physician, who wrote about it in The Lancet - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...)

[frenchman99]

You probably meant to say "every big business". I don't know many small companies that keep 285 billion away from taxes. Large companies like Apple usually pay way less taxes than smaller ones, precisely because they manage to optimize away way more taxes.

[enraged_camel]

Whataboutism.

[stcredzero]

"Whataboutism" is intellectually bankrupt. If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy, it doesn't matter who it's from, or how hypocritical the speaker is. It's the message, not the messenger, otherwise it's just the reverse of argument by authority. Ideas should be evaluated for their content.

[ben509]

> If something is a legitimate callout of hypocrisy

I'd like to nail down when accusing someone of hypocrisy is legitimate. (I don't think I'm disagreeing with your larger point, more clarifying.)

If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority, sure, pointing out that they can't live up to their own standards casts doubt on that moral authority or the feasibility of those standards. And sometimes people don't realize they're arguing from innate moral authority, so challenging them on that point can identify some unspoken assumptions. (All that said, it's clearer to plainly state, "I think you're implicitly claiming moral authority, and I dispute this," than to ask "what about X.")

Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though. For example, "Cook told the new Stanford graduates that digital surveillance threatened innovation and would have 'stopped Silicon Valley before it got started.'” This is an argument that the process is innately self-defeating, which doesn't rest on his personal moral authority.

In this case, since he's not fundamentally basing his argument on moral authority, saying "what about" is simply an ad hominem tu quoque.

[stcredzero]

If the person is insisting that their arguments come from an innate moral authority

That part of their argument can simply be ignored.

Cook doesn't seem to be doing that, though.

I never said he was. I was specifically responding to the notion of "whataboutism" itself. That notion itself is philosophically bankrupt. Ideas should be judged on their merits, not on who has advanced them.

simply an ad hominem tu quoque

Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger.

[yadaeno]

> Ad hominem is another example of ignoring the message and nonsensically diverting attention to the messenger

I see how it ignores the message but disagree that it's nonsensical.

I agree with you in that whataboutism calls into questions the intentions of the messenger: You are accusing them of trying to derail the discussion instead of addressing their point at face value.

However, I think your analysis is practically bankrupt and overly idealistic since it fails to address how saying 'what about this' can be an effective tool to wave attention away, or try to discredit another argument or 'message' as you call them.

This is like saying every request made in a DDOS attack should be taken at face value. We should never question the broader intentions of the request