this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
1403 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

60062 readers
3727 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1403
Jon Stewart’s Apple TV Plus show ends, reportedly over coverage of AI and China (www.theverge.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
258 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lots of foreign companies have branches in China, including most global corps

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s ethical to employ any sort of labor

did this mfer just imply slavery is ethical

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Slavery isn't employment

the condition of having paid work. "a fall in the numbers in full-time employment"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You didn't say employment. You said labor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I said to employ labor.

"Employ" is the verb form of the noun "employment."

Hope this helps.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Rather than desperately trying to take me in bad faith, maybe read what I say.

If someone agrees to a certain rate of pay, they are not being exploited. There is nothing unethical about the hiring. I am obviously pro regulations like worker safety.

This is a really stupid discussion that should have been obvious if you weren't trying to be a shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

If someone agrees to a certain rate of pay, they are not being exploited

lmfao