The Problem with Jon Stewart cancellation highlights a problem for Apple content
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Apple's revenue from China is $74 billion, 19% of the total. They also have manufacturing there still, even when they try to separate.
You can insult anyone in the free world except Xi from China and MSB from Saudi Arabia.
You can even insult them. Maybe not with someone else’s money, but go ahead and put up a website.
With China it's even worse - they've been caught operating secret police stations worldwide, who then targeted and threatened dissidents [3]. Can't find the article again, but I remember that there were also cases of Chinese dissidents being threatened with harm to their family that was still in China. Hard to get more insidious than that.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-lawmaker-briefly-detained-on-tr...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/saudi-arabia-u...
[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-are-chinas-allege...
Remember Jamal Khashoggi?
As a Canadian I am so dismayed that the response from my goverment when those police stations were found wasn't to raid them with swat teams and lead everyone found inside out in handcuffs.
If we can't respond to a foreign country setting up police stations without permission what can we do?
Sounds more like a "we told you so" for everyone who is against every morally unsound dumbass in the country being able to own a firearm.
And to be clear, I am with the other poster who said he wishes the Canadian government's response was stronger when it came to the Chinese "stations". That is of course the proper mechanism for handling this.
I have not heard of any 2nd amendment 'events' that have occured at these stations.
Even if I had material evidence that the house next door is a nest of Chinese spies, there is no cause, precedent or excuse for me to kick in the door and waste everyone inside. My doing so would instigate an international incident in their favor, and I would never see freedom again.
Guns pose no threat whatsoever to adversaries who treat human life as disposable, and who know our weapons can't be lawfully used against them on our own soil. It's literally win-win for them.
The second amendment (along with other aspects of the Constitution relating to the militia) is largely an attempt at protection against our own government setting up large dedicate internal and external security forces which would naturally become insular subcultures (the internal security forces being the most critical one, though external services were a threat because they have a history of being called on for internal security when the government feels particularly threatened), by instead protecting the capacity for and promoting the use of a small permanent cadre supplemented by the militia of the general citizenry for both purposes.
It completely failed both as to external and internal security, but it wasn't a bad idea. (Ironically, the people most hyped about the second amendment also tend to be rather aggressively in favor of giving more resources, responsibility, and leeway to permanent security forces, both internal and external, and are violently opposed to people who promote things like defunding the police.)
Sure, some. But not all…and from my understanding the nature of these police stations is to try and police anti-CCP activity of the non-US citizen Chinese immigrants.
>Do you discriminate…
Bear in mind there is a considerable cultural difference between a freshly arrived Chinese immigrant in Chinatown NYC and Joe Bob McGill from Pahokee, Florida as it would relate to the submission to or tolerance of a foreign government’s expression of authority within their community. One is a person used to heavy handed action from their government, and the other is a guy driving around town with a Gadsen flag flying on a pole in their truck bed (which is stained with alligator blood that was shot and killed and pulled out of their momma’s pond for getting a little too frisky).
Depending on the exact sense of "immigrant" in use, the answer is either an unqualified "no" (if looking at the status of being present on an immigrant visa) or "in some but not all case" (if looking at "people who have immigrated", in which case some are naturalized US citizens, but many are not.)
In the cases I've read about, they were set up by local Chinese associations, and the main service they provided was verifying the identities of Chinese people who wanted to do things like renewing their Chinese driver's license.
It's a satellite spy office operating as police officers abroad while conspicuously denying their role. They're barely hiding it but you bought an obvious cover story without a second thought.
"They're not real police, they're not even affiliated with the government, but they'll helpfully do things like help expats put themselves on the CCP radar by performing essential services like...verifying their identities and renewing drivers' licenses."
That's what the fucking consulate is for.
This arrangement is like me offering to "help" you by living in your backyard and peeking in your windows randomly to make sure you're still alive.
I've sometimes heard it said that job search centers can help people look for jobs, but they still expect people to be able to fill out an application, because that's a bare minimum expectation that an employer is entitled to have.
And I feel like there's some sort of correlate when it comes to a certain amount of functional literacy in conversations like this. If a person doesn't have the literacy to understand that the exercise of shuffling labels around to insulate from criticism or evaluation, to me that someone who's not showing up having fulfilled a bare minimum expectation of functional literacy. It's not a formal or informal fallacy but I do think it's fair to categorize it as a failure to bring the necessary type of functional literacy to a conversation of this nature.
These sorts of services are often outsourced from consulates. For example, there are separate visa application centers set up by foreign governments in many countries.
> It's a satellite spy office ... while conspicuously denying their role
Unironically, that's what consulates are for.
The whole story was reported as "police stations," which gave the public the false impression that Chinese police officers were roaming around Western cities arresting people. They could have been cover for spying, but what they were doing day-to-day was far more mundane than what the public thought, based on the headlines.
> This arrangement is like me offering to "help" you by living in your backyard and peeking in your windows
I don't see how this analogy holds. Chinese people interacted with these places on their own initiative, because it allowed them to handle bureaucratic things like renewing ID cards more easily.
At least China is (as I linked) known for threatening the families of regime critics in exile; reports from Turkish people in Germany suggests the same for Turkey (where groups as the "Grey Wolves" act like the Turkish government's "enforcers"), and there's also anecdotal reports from African refugees that they are extorted to pay back the smugglers.
[1] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/erdogans-gegner-werden-in...
The crazy thing is that, just like mocking Chinese politicians is not in actuality a big deal in that it’s harmless and it’s clear to us that the Chinese government is being extra sensitive; revealing of US war crimes seems to have been harmless too in that the government continues to do it, the general population doesn’t care, and the people who did it are roaming free, yet the US government continues to be extra sensitive to it.
That's all?
The US government is trying to show that if you publish American government secrets, they can go after you, no matter where you are in the world. If they succeed, it will send a chilling message to journalists around the world.
We have video games like Fuck Putin (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1926680/FUCK_PUTIN/) does that count? I’d sure put up a single page html site calling all the above listed as autocrats with blood on their hands but I too fear what might befall me physically or professionally. So much Chinese money flows into the west especially here in Berlin and Germany in general.
Imagine I put up a site that said President Xi is a a despot and looks like a certain bear and word got to my would be employers at BMW and they thought my words would threaten their ability to sell cars in China I wouldn’t be offered the job, that’s for sure.
So, even though I am nobody, I’m still too afraid to really speak out.
Did you read about the Harvard and Columbia law students who had their job offers rescinded because they signed a letter critical of Israel’s actions?
I would expect the same reaction if right after 9/11, a group released a statement saying the US brought the attack on itself.
I am far too dependent on being employable to be able to say what I think without consequence. I’m not rich enough to be able to be free enough to do that.
Edit in response to the reply: presumably it's the Chinese market that is not interested in paying for content that criticizes them. But if you want to make this about Apple, then I just reiterate that the parties in this case are entangled in ways that can't be coherently taxonomized into independent subjects that are understood as being completely unrelated to each other. If a company bringing shows to market in a country, and the countries willingness to assassinate critics, are subjects you view as unrelated, then, to use your term, our models of the world are probably too different to productively communicate.
He was first name in your reply. I assume you have some evidence right? Cite your sources.
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
I think you’d need to work to make lemonade not kosher, like adding gelatin or something.
Maybe putting the card before the horse a bit there
You can insult anyone in the free world if they don't control enough wealth and have enough vindictiveness to make that costly for your employer. MSB and Xi just have power ludicrous amounts of wealth through their positions, and are extremely thin-skinned, to the point that it would be comical except for the manner in which they are able to express their insecurities.
Yes. Such a challenge to choose between censorship and their own business interests.
It's like the "challenge" to decide whether to do the right thing or not. Don't we have another word for that kind of "challenge"?
And Apple isn't completely unfounded here, Jon's coverage of China walks the line of being anti-Chinese rather than criticizing Chinese leadership and unless it's changed very recently his coverage of "AI" is painfully ignorant to where it crosses over into not even wrong at times. And since has the gift of making literally anything he says sound reasonable it's hard to not be worried. I don't think it's enough to drop him but it's also not my call. I love Jon, I'd vote for him in 2024 but he's human and it's weird how much people mythologize him.
If Jon Stewart were intentionally getting major stories entirely incorrect, fewer people would be defending him.
Or you can sidestep the issue entirely and just let people not associate for any reason they want with the only restriction being when that non-association interferes with other people's rights. And there's some debate to be had when this happens but this to me is a pretty clear case of that not happening.
Yes, exactly.
I think people (here anyway) resent the kowtowing to the Chinese government, and so of course will goad Apple for their artistic cowardice, if it turns out they didn't want Jon to cover a topic due to concerns of a dictatorship's feelings.
I guess I'm confused - are people not supposed to have value judgements on journalists, entertainers or foreign governments or trillion-dollar corporations?
Services (Content, iCloud, Fitness+, etc) are just one approach. They're trying AR (Reality Pro), Cars maybe?
Take that as given, it still doesn't explain why, among all business opportunities, Apple picked 1 An area they had little experience in 2 That already serves its customers well 3 That is according to OP low margin.
On (2): Cell phones in 2005 were way worse than Netflix, HBO, ESPN were when Apple would have been market-researching Apple TV+.
Apple TV+ has never seemed like a core product to me though, just something they can bundle with iPhones and iPads to round out those products.
My point is I’m not so sure it’s plateaued- I don’t buy them as often because I don’t like replacing things that still work, but they do keep adding more features that I’d be interested in. (And removing some, like headphone jacks and buttons)
In the future if your email service suspects you of being a spammer you will no longer be welcome at your local grocery store.
Point being, the Unix philosophy has its own issues, especially around the foundations of how it all glues together.
If you look at any lists of largest private companies, you’ll see many that are likely highly profitable but also very boring stay-in-their-lane type of businesses; businesses that know their cash cow and sticks to it. It’s Wall Street investment that tends to drives risky moves in pursuit of growth.
Wall Street doesn’t care that much about profit. They care about growth.
Any action that will raise the stock price, even at the cost of customers or profit, is a win in their book.
After all, they’ll sell just before the party is over and make out like robber barons.
In the future, it seems to me the major tech platforms are the most likely to buy the major sports leagues’ rights.
Having content now has allowed Apple a prime seat at that poker table. All the phones help too.
Why did Bezos buy the Washington Post? A lot of this just feels like a prestige play. It's new money trying to get taken seriously by old money. Even though new money actually has more money, they're still outsiders. Apple won a Best Picture Oscar within three years of launching their service, something Netflix has spent the last decade throwing billions at big-name director vanity projects to aim for. It's a dick measuring contest.
China’s handling of COVID showed how vulnerable global supply chains were, and their censorship regime shows that they are not aligned with anyone with typical western values of freedom of expression.
It seems to me that Tim Cook is chasing sunk costs.
There was another thread on this where several people said the show was painful to watch / not enjoyable.
Do a lot of people watch it?
[1] https://www.thewrap.com/the-problem-with-jon-stewart-ratings...
Highlights a problem with reliance on a big centralized distributor with an editorial policy and a conflict of interests.
Perhaps he should start a podcast, like so many others have done :-)
I find the centralization and control by the mega tech companies to be very disturbing. +100 for Mastodon.
Or he could just make a video podcast. Video podcasts _are_ a thing, though most podcasters don't go that route. That would be better than going the youtube route imo, since podcasts are decentralized. Apple Podcasts isn't really a platform; it just an app that interfaces with the RSS feed of decentralized podcasts.
Years ago Discovery Channel were told NOT to allow Mythbusters to do an episode on credit card RFID security [1]
Murdoch owns so many publications around the world who are not allowed to run stories about things he doesn't agree with, Bezos owns the Washington Post, etc. etc.
It's manipulated all the way down.
[1] https://www.networkworld.com/article/2275605/was-mythbuster-...
The significant part about podcasts (compared with say youtube) is that distribution can be independent, listening (watching) to podcasts is not tied to any single platform.
That’s called a vodcast. It works the same way in principle as a podcast. You make an RSS feed and have it point to video files that you publish.
AFAIK Literally they’re the only ones who deal with that kind of heavy data ingestion.
Podcasting happens wherever a podcast publishing platform like anchor uploads the audio (YouTube, Apple Music, Spotify, etc.)
Otherwise discoverability is difficult. Sure you can host your own audio and video files, but who will find it. The network effect is a tough nut to crack.
Maybe Apple said all the right things at the beginning and then changed their tune. Either way it sucks because I liked the show a lot.
I mean, if that entity is rationalizing censorship to maximize profit, maybe you should? The alternative is blaming Jon Stewart, and eventually I'm going to get tired of accusing free speech and opinions of being the devil.
This whole situation stinks, though. If Jon's being honestly transparent, it's a sad confirmation of how deeply mired Apple is in the current political muck.
So I guess both Stewart and Apple get some credit there. But Apple isn't making it clear who is deciding Stewart crossed a line and how that happened. Maybe it's a government? Maybe it's an exec? I can fault them for that.
Why not? Seems pretty emblematic of most problems in society. You'd be a fool to not see this. It's not hard to criticize expected failures of a broken system.
It was pretty silly of apple to not see this end coming though. Or, conspiracy theory time, maybe they did see this coming and decided “look, we cancelled Jon Stewart to make you happy” might get them something else in negotiations.
Or better (my remix, so to speak)...
The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges consumers face not knowing how much the content producers and platforms control and influence what is - or more importantly is not - spotlighted. In order to mitigate the possibility of big problems for said company's overall business the incentive is to keep consumers as ignorant and distracted as possible. The less consumer know, the less consumer think, the better.
---
It's important to point out that democracy can't exist in information darkness (i.e., lack of transparency and completeness). And yet it's these gate keepers who are so quick to promote "threat to democracy" narratives that somehow always seem to fail to mention their own willing and intentional efforts in to limit information.
Most of this covered in previous discussions and stories this week
Or maybe the show had terrible ratings and it wasn't worth the potential grief. Why needle a business partner (China) when there is no upside?
Why make an adversarial superpower a critical "business partner" in the first place?
If you think the leash doesn't hurt and China is liable to be friendly towards America, that's your moral crusade. In my opinion, things have already gone too far.
Anyone can publish content critical of China or whatever online, it does not need to come from Apple.
Countless hours are spent consuming content on platforms controlled by a tiny number of people.
And it is pretty frictionless, all people have to do is type or search for the website address.
Yes, the internet still exits and you can use it, I am aware of that.
You're right that this content is potentially more damaging to Apple's interests than anything Oliver said. The low bar I was referring to was "be better than AT&T". Or than David Zaslav, who waltzed in the door and killed all the content people liked.
Indeed, Jon Stewart talking about China and AI is an incredibly low bar for censorship. Plus, it wouldn't be hard for him to build an audience with a different network or even on his own.
I'm surprised that tech companies are entering media at all. The mysterious echelons in the board rooms are obsessed with PR and HR messaging, and Apple is even more notorious with secrecy, compartmentalization and an appearance of total external coherence. In fact, that's arguably their biggest strength when it comes to design and product.
Now, when a company like Apple enters entertainment, you need a lot more diversity of thought. Nobody wants to watch the same thing over and over, not even "normies". I believe legacy media as well as HBO, Netflix etc, "get it" to a larger extent. Sure, they have conflicts of interest (e.g. The Dissident that few wanted to touch because of Saudi relations). But, they have a base-level awareness of the rules of engagement, and at least a moderately thicker skin.
this dichotomy makes me strongly think that this decision has little relation to AI and has come straight from the CCP. realistically Jon Stewart criticising AI is going to negligibly affect their bottom line. at worst they get mocked in the press and a small segment of very principled opinionated people may not buy an iPhone. at best they come across as fair and unbiased by allowing seemingly antithetical viewpoints on their platform. if the CCP weren't involved, I think they take that risk. the CCP can hugely affect their bottom-line, not only in customer-base, but massively in the supply-chain too
There’s also more of an arms length brand relationship at play here. John Oliver doing a segment on FIFA corruption on HBO is hardly going to register as a concern when Eurosport, AT&T SportsNet and TNT Sports are negotiating soccer broadcast rights contracts… while a ‘Stream Now’ button on a Problem With Jon Stewart title card appearing on the front page of Apple.com is a lot less ambiguous when you’re revisiting the terms of your joint venture with the Chinese government.
Whereas with a topic about China, that's a whole government that has a history of not being able to take a joke, and will likely retaliate and cost Apple a significant amount of money.
Not saying it's good or right, though. John Oliver also had a whole show about China and their treatment of Uighurs, though, so that seems to be a more direct comparison. That aired back in 2020 and his show hasn't been cancelled yet.
The guest was respectful, the host was vulgar.
Extortion is the fertilizer of organized crime.
When taking this into consideration, Jon's argument is equivalent to flatulence.
If the police are the regulars, the citizens are the Minutemen. A scalable, ubiquituous force ready to act at a minute's notice.
This is a weird fantasy that isn't really playing out with the Second Amendment rights we have.
Meanwhile, there are other industrialized countries where people don't always have guns, and sometimes even the police do not have guns, and they are doing better than us in terms of crime and safety. Of course, if you think of countries like Japan, their cultures are simply superior.
I am not against someone owning a gun to protect their household, but these kinds of grand arguments fall flat in front of the data we have.
Japan is formidable but they are effectively a vassal state, always remember that.
The fact that it has been neutered as a military power is irrelevant. It isn't a "vassal state" btw, that's ridiculous. The world isn't the video game or fantasy novel you are trying to shunt its reality into.
I do not think what you are describing was a historical reality. There may have been varying degrees of citizenry having to help keep the peace and such before the rise of modern policing, but I am pretty sure the 2nd Amd was about state militias and states rights vis-a-vis the federal government. I am sure I don't have the 100% correct picture, but I am also pretty sure that this wet dream about a self-organized force of comprised of the citizenry that enforced laws is historically inaccurate, in addition to being impractical in modern society (to put it mildly).
Not to mention that most of us would prefer professional police; but a force that is better disciplined, better-trained, less protected by law to do whatever they want, and comprised of overall better people.
They cannot declare war and must assist in case of war. There are limits in terms of the size of their armed forces. They have foreign bases in their territory.
And, geopolitics is and has always been game-like. With strategy and tactics governing everything.
You just live in the equilibrium reached after one faction won. Pax Americana.
And even for the ones that exist as a matter of international agreement and treaty, it's hardly like the US is going to seek compliance via force. If anything, at this point, there must be a non-negligible amount of support in American foreign policy circles for Japan's resuming a more independent and militarily capable stature to help deter China.
If this was like 1950 and you said Japan was a vassal, that would seem reasonable, but I think at this point the situation is too complicated to put in those terms. For example, you could also say America is playing some kind of mercenary role and Japan is kind of in the very civilized and posh position of being able to pay another country for bodyguard services. That probably never worked out for a country or state in the long-run, but that's not really the point; one might call such a country weak, but not really a "vassal".
Being a vassal state has benefits. Protection being one of them. The Japanese people are smart, they saw their options and realized being a vassal state of the US (and not the Soviet Union) was in their best interest.
But i'm under no illusion that guns without control makes the society more violent and less trustful.
I saw one of the first tapings of The Problem. In a Q&A before the show, Jon talked about how draining it was to record The Daily Show every day. Furthermore, he felt frustrated by the short shelf-life of the episodes—for all the work they did, no one was interested after a few days.
For The Problem, Jon Stewart only recorded a handful of episodes each year, and he chose topics which (he hoped) would remain relevant for longer.