I'm not mad at a multinational corporation for doing whatever is best for their bottom line. I'm not one of those Occupy Wall Street types, but this pretense of social justice is deeply concerning. Back in the day we had the giant amoral corporations and the social justice advocates and they would duke it out in the political arena. The public would balance the benefits of corporations (jobs, more stuff, etc.) against social justice and distributional concerns. But today, the giant amoral corporations have coopted political movements for social justice by pretending to join them.
The opposition has collapsed. You've got the party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and the party of Mitch McConnell. Ideas that had been the stock and trade of liberals, like opposing racism, have been redefined and redeployed to stifle opposition to globalism and giving away the store to China.
> Back in the day we had the giant amoral corporations and the social justice advocates and they would duke it out in the political arena. The public would balance the benefits of corporations (jobs, more stuff, etc.) against social justice and distributional concerns. But today, the giant amoral corporations have coopted political movements for social justice by pretending to join them.
I don't think it has ever been different. Corporations don't care about much that doesn't hurt their bottom line. They just care about positive PR and to achieve that they side with whatever team that seems to be winning right now.
A lot of the companies preaching wokeness now have supported fascists in the past and most of them would probably do it again, it just depends on what's popular.
> Ideas that had been the stock and trade of liberals, like opposing racism, have been redefined and redeployed to stifle opposition to globalism and giving away the store to China.
You have a corporate party and a corporate party. Typical left-wing ideas have been hollowed out by the democratic party as a nice paint on their corporate agenda, with the same motivation as described above. The republicans do the same thing, but with xenophobia.
Your comment sounds defeatist, like them doing that ruins something. They may be trying to redefine meanings, but pointing that out and standing for the original ones is both possible and effective.
OH I wish we could talk. Exactly the same thought here. I often wonder if we are a very small minority. I dont have a problem with cooperate aiming for profits, the world isn't black and white. But I have a huge problem with pretense and hypocrisy.
It used to be Google when they kept their whole "Dont Be Evil" PR, I was making the argument Google cant and shouldn't be trusted to Mozilla 20 years too early. But Apple went from true to themselves in Steve Jobs era to hypocrisy level that even makes Google looking like complete amateur. From making insanely great product for our family and friends in Steve Jobs era, to "enriching people's lives", than "leave the world better than we found it" and "privacy is a fundamental human right".
Nah #2 would only be true in countries where you don't have the option to start your own platform and make a business out of presenting alternative platforms for those "social voices". If you can't make a business out of that then those voices were tiny and unprofitable anyway and should have been put on personal blogs or something.
US forced PRC company to sell Grindr due to national security, reasonable for PRC to ban US owned Grindr in return. Wonder if it's easier to blackmail a gay PLA officer vs gay US forces officer. Regardless, both cultures seem to still view homosexuality as a national security liability.
> The Trump administration is expanding its efforts to block Chinese acquisitions in the United States, moving to force a Chinese firm that owns Grindr, the gay dating app, to relinquish control over concerns that Beijing could use personal information to blackmail or influence American officials, according to people familiar with the situation.
Now, it is owned by an American company and China must have similar concerns which explains the ban.
Calling Grindr an “LGBTQ+ App” is a bit off the mark. It’s a hook-up app for gay men. Nothing wrong with that — used it myself back in the day, it’s one of many — but that moniker seems needlessly fussy.
Meh, I disagree, as someone who uses the app for way too many hours a day. It's not just for gay people, it is used by a lot of people who identify has queer or trans or NB.
It's also not just a hookup app, but that's not really a strong argument given how 99% of my interactions go on there.
Please don't take HN threads into ideological or nationalistic flamewar. We're trying for curious conversation here, and heated battle is not compatible with that. That's why the site guidelines say:
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
- it looks to me like you're trolling, so I've banned the account.
If I've got that wrong and if you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I'm not mad at a multinational corporation for doing whatever is best for their bottom line. I'm not one of those Occupy Wall Street types, but this pretense of social justice is deeply concerning. Back in the day we had the giant amoral corporations and the social justice advocates and they would duke it out in the political arena. The public would balance the benefits of corporations (jobs, more stuff, etc.) against social justice and distributional concerns. But today, the giant amoral corporations have coopted political movements for social justice by pretending to join them.
The opposition has collapsed. You've got the party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and the party of Mitch McConnell. Ideas that had been the stock and trade of liberals, like opposing racism, have been redefined and redeployed to stifle opposition to globalism and giving away the store to China.