cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/6745228
TLDR: Apple wants to keep china happy, Stewart was going after china in some way, Apple said don’t, Stewart walked, the show is dead.
Not surprising at all, but sad and shitty and definitely reduces my loyalty to the platform. Hosting Stewart seemed like a real power play from Apple, where conflict like this was inevitable, but they were basically saying, yes we know, but we believe in things and, as a big company with deep pockets that can therefore take risks, to prove it we’re hosting this show.
Changing their minds like this is worse than ever hosting the show in the first place as it shows they probably don’t know what they’re doing or believe in at all, like any big company, and just going for what seems cool, and undermining the very idea of a company like Apple running a streaming platform. I wonder if the Morning Show/Wars people are paying close attention.
Companies that appease the CCP are the problem, not companies that leverage exchange rates to better lives globally.
Companies in China ARE the CCP. Nothing is actually privately owned. Everything is owned by the government, so giving any money to a company in China is supporting the CCP.
Lots of foreign companies have branches in China, including most global corps
True, but that is completely irrelevant to the topic of whether it is ethical to use cheap Chinese labor. Those branches are not the ones employing cheap labor from the blue collar workers in China. Those are almost entirely white collar jobs, and many of them are in place specifically to work with the local companies who DO employ the blue collar laborers. The sweatshops aren’t OWNED by Nike or Gucci or Apple. They are contract facilities owned by a CCP-backed corporation.
Sure but that level of contracting is not contributing to the CCP so much as to the Chinese people
It’s ethical to employ any sort of labor
It’s ethical to employ any sort of labor
did this mfer just imply slavery is ethical
Slavery isn’t employment
the condition of having paid work. “a fall in the numbers in full-time employment”
You didn’t say employment. You said labor.
I said to employ labor.
“Employ” is the verb form of the noun “employment.”
Hope this helps.
Sure. The context makes it mean something else however. To employ also means to make use of something. You don’t “provide employment to” labor, that would make no sense.
Besides, is the alternative that you think any worker treatment is fine so long as it’s technically employment and not slavery? That’s a little fucked innit
