Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceilingcorner | Hacker News Reader

I’d have a lot less issue with companies selling to China if they didn’t simultaneously pretend to be moral forces for good. Michael Jordan understood this years ago and I will forever have more respect for him than Lebron and his selective activism.

As they say, a man’s true character comes to light in hardship; and there is nothing difficult about adopting the moral crusade of the day back here in the so-called Free World. What matters is how you act when things are difficult, when you have something to lose.

View on HN

Google's withdrawal from China in 2010 stands out as perhaps the most eminently courageous move a technology mega-corp has made against a powerful nation state. The tragedy is that the world didn't care - signaling perhaps to all future decisions makers that, well, the we don't really care.

Not only did we not appreciate the significance of what happened or reward the deed, we have adopted in these peak social media years a style of criticism that blackens every shade of gray. No leadership will ever make Google's mistake again.

The lore is that Google heroically pulled out of China because they wouldn't compromise the purity of their search results. The reality is somewhat more complex—in short, Google played chicken with China and lost.

"In the end, though, it wasn’t censorship or competition that drove Google out of China. It was a far-reaching hacking attack known as Operation Aurora that targeted everything from Google’s intellectual property to the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The attack, which Google said came from within China, pushed company leadership over the edge."

https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/12/19/138307/how-googl...

The 'lore' that I've always heard is that Google pulled out due to both censorship and privacy, in that the attack succeeded against some user accounts.

At the time they were the #2 search engine in China, and when they pulled out MS saw it as an opportunity to try to take their place. This came back to mind last week when spoke about their noble willingness to take Google's place in Australia - to do the right thing in support of a just law (/s).

What good would it do for anyone if Apple were to follow the way Google did? People in China wouldn't have freer access to the non-China internet, or less heavy-handed government intervention, if they had to VPN from Lenovo laptop instead of a Mac. I think this is unhelpful for the ideals that Westerners like to have, specifically because it's a moral crusade.

Apple is the single most valuable corporation in the world. Their brand is more respected than probably any other, globally.

If they wanted to lead a movement, the corporate world would follow. But they don’t and instead stick to the no-effort-required causes in the West.

Hence my criticism. As I said, if they wanted to just be a faceless megacorp selling gizmos to all buyers, I would find them far less hypocritical.

> If they wanted to lead a movement, the corporate world would follow.

It's an interesting theory, but that didn't happen when Google pulled out.

That seemed more like a “I quit, you can’t fire me!” action and not a coordinated movement.

It makes Apple products highly valuable in China in an economy outside of the government's control. Having a bigger black market in China encourages freedom. It would be a huge deal.

>”...if they didn’t simultaneously pretend to be moral forces for good. Michael Jordan understood this years ago...”

moral consistency is not why jordan avoided activism. he did so because he knew his whole identity as best basketball player in the world (not to mention his fortunes) could be taken away by oligarchal owners if he made any misstep or perceived slight. he was hyper-competitive and didn’t want to play a losing game.

(like so many others, jordan was my basketball idol growing up.)

I’m not saying Jordan is a moral hero, but that he isn’t a hypocrite. I appreciate the cold professionalism far more than the hypocrisy of someone like LeBron.

What do you see as the hypocrisy of LeBron? He's a successful athlete, and also is a person concerned about racism and institutional failings in his country and in his community. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Plenty of athletes have used their positions to advocate for causes unrelated to sport. Think about Muhammad Ali losing his title for refusing to fight in Vietnam.

The odd man out here is Michael Jordan, with his "Republicans buy sneakers too" quip.

Are you familiar with his comments on Morey’s tweet regarding Hong Kong?

I mean, in the 'silence is violence' era, public figures are condemned for NOT publicly condemning things that 'should' be condemned.

At the same time, I understand why people don't want to bite the hand that feeds them, so it can get tricky as a public figure. On one hand, yes I see the inconsistencies and hypocrisies in their actions, but I make it a habit to remember that if I were in their shoes, I may not do any 'better', so who am I to judge.

Since we are talking about the NBA, Charles Barkley famously said "I am not a role model" where I'm not sure it's easy to get away with that today.

Lebron could have easily said “no comment” or “I don’t know enough about the situation to weigh in.”

Instead, he gave an absurd statement about the tweet “hurting people spiritually” purely because he has a lot of financial interests in China. Hence my charge of hypocrisy.

Ah so because I don't take action against something I can't change, I shouldn't take action about things I can change.

Guess I should start beef again because I don't do anything about the Uyghurs.

Your suggesting that Apple standing up to China would have no positive impact?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com