Tim Cook: Technology companies need to take responsibility for chaos they create
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
It's not a good look and I worry it is poisoning the well for others in the future.
A 2018 Gallup poll found that only 25% of Americans thought there was too little government regulation. Another 33% thought we had the right amount, and 39% thought there was too much.
A more recent poll about the tech companies specifically, while much closer, still found that a minority thought the tech giants should be subject to more regulation (https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433482-pol...).
So I would say that for the most part, while the representatives are not representing your views, their views are consistent with the majority of America.
I say this as someone that believes the US desperately needs more environmental regulation. I would also love if congress could create some common sense regulations to standardize website/app TOS and privacy policies. But that's just me.
I think there is a trend to blame "politicians" for all of our problems as if they were some exogenous force. Unfortunately, for the most part I think they represent us just fine. If democracy is a government by the people, we can't reasonably expect that it will be much different from the people in it.
I dislike when politicians are reflexively held responsible for our societal ills, because I feel it is a kind of mental laziness to avoid having to engage with the large portion of the nation that disagrees.
The question of "Is there enough regulation" is the wrong question. The right question is "Is there enough _enforcement_ of regulation?". I suspect that answer is very different.
But more seriously, how about a world where companies take responsibility for the chaos they create?
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.)
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.
If you preach something you should make the same sacrifices you ask others for.
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...)
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.
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.
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
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.
Far from being an example of hypocrisy, I think this is a good example of Cook's point.
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)
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.
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.
Isn't that literally the link above?
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.
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.
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"
Tim seems like a person only interested in talking in points that smear his competition. Understandable from pure selfish business perspective, but the fact that he's trying to make a moral argument just leaves a bad taste in our mouth.
Do you take advantage of pretax savings that benefit the middle and upper class?
Is their any tax break that you don’t take advantage of that you are legally entitled to?
The whole message of “businesses are bad because they don’t give money to the government for no reason” doesn’t really resonate with people who understand taxes.