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.

  • @dogslayeggs
    link
    English
    111 months ago

    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.

    • @SCB
      link
      English
      -311 months ago

      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

      • @Zehzin
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        It’s ethical to employ any sort of labor

        did this mfer just imply slavery is ethical

        • @SCB
          link
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Slavery isn’t employment

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

          • @Zehzin
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            You didn’t say employment. You said labor.

            • @SCB
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I said to employ labor.

              “Employ” is the verb form of the noun “employment.”

              Hope this helps.

              • @Zehzin
                link
                English
                0
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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

                • @SCB
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  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.

                  • @Zehzin
                    link
                    English
                    011 months ago

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

                    lmfao