The Problem with Jon Stewart cancellation highlights a problem for Apple content(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The Problem with Jon Stewart cancellation highlights a problem for Apple content
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/report-apple-cancels-the-problem-with-jon-stewart-over-china-ai-topics/
142 comments
The most intolerant and rich wins.
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
Same inference can be drawn from Arrow-Sen impossibility theorem that "there is no voting rule that satisfies the four desirable axioms of decisiveness, consensus, nondictatorship, and independence."
I'm not even sure 'rich' is a requirement - just 'posing as rich' works.
I think that article used a weird example of kosher lemonade.
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
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
Thats kind of the point. Catering to the intolerant is practically free, and the tolerant barely notice, so naturally the intolerant win. The kosher lemonade example is good because it is at the extreme end where almost no one can take offense. With that established, you can start asking 'what if it costs a little?', or 'what if the tolerent have a slight preference that the intolerant don't?'.
> 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.
You can even insult them. Maybe not with someone else’s money, but go ahead and put up a website.
You'd just better not travel to that country then. At least Turkey [1] and Saudi-Arabia [2] have arrested people for internet postings that were done outside of their territory.
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...
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...
>Hard to get more insidious than that.
Remember Jamal Khashoggi?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
Remember Jamal Khashoggi?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi
Julian Assange has been sitting in prison for years, awaiting extradition to the US for publishing information that revealed US war crimes and gravely embarrassed the US. Assange isn't an American citizen, and he wasn't even in the US when he published the material. He's being prosecuted for breaking one of the largest stories in the history of modern journalism, and there should be a much larger outcry.
Yeah, he didn't put up a website that made fun of US politicians; he posted things such as classified government material, didn't he? Inapposite comparison.
Yeah, different regimes are sensitive to different issues. All Assange did was release a video showing US bombing civilians in another country. Taters nothing inherently classified about that information. The fact that our government goes to great efforts to hide it and punishes anyone for revealing it is tyrannical.
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.
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.
> All Assange did was release a video showing US bombing civilians in another country.
That's all?
That's all?
Yes, that's what journalists often do.
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.
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.
The first two cases are Turkish and Saudi citizens.
Yeah I mean that seems like common sense— if you want to insult a strongman dictator for being brutal, probably not a great idea to go to his country where he is judge, jury, and executioner!
> if you want to insult a strongman dictator for being brutal, probably not a great idea to go to his country
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...
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...
You seem to have missed the part about the Chinese police coming to you.
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?
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?
This is where Americans keen on 2nd amendment rights get to say, 'we told you so!'.
? So randos with guns should be able to just waltz in and kill or arrest officers of a foreign government because they think those guys are spies or something?
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.
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.
These Chinese police stations exist in the United States as well.
I have not heard of any 2nd amendment 'events' that have occured at these stations.
I have not heard of any 2nd amendment 'events' that have occured at these stations.
The thing I wonder is, what is the impact of a known armed populace on the willingness of foreign powers to set up operations like this? I.e. if you were able to re-roll the United States disarmed like the UK, would there be more Chinese police stations? I guess we'll never know.
None, which is why the 2nd Amendment is a joke at our own expense. The only people who fear the guns of Americans are women and children.
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.
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.
> None, which is why the 2nd Amendment is a joke at our own expense.
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.)
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.)
There is no doubt in my mind that if they tried to spread their influence beyond the Chinese immigrant communities you would definitely see 2nd amendment “events” at these things.
Aren't Chinese immigrants Americans? Do you discriminate amongst yourselves?
> Aren't Chinese immigrants Americans?
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.)
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.)
>Aren’t Chinese immigrants Americans?
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).
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).
Those "police stations" were not what you'd picture when you hear the word "police station." They didn't have police officers, and they couldn't arrest anyone. I don't think they even had government employees.
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.
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.
If you can't see the obvious problems with that arrangement, re-read what you said and think about the implications until you do.
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.
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.
> That's what the fucking consulate is for.
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.
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.
Right, and playing games with words is how you have 'advisors' in Vietnam, 'team members' who aren't eligible for benefits, 'enemy combatants' whose legal designation allows them to elide any rights typically afforded the accused.
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.
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.
No, that was their cover story.
Yeah I agree. Why the fuck go there afterward. Begs the question, was the insult meant to highlight the evils or highlight the person making the insult.
Xi, Putin, MBS, Kim, and now Modi have assassinated critics in countries with free speech protections (UK, US, Canada).
Sure, that is a problem, but has nothing to do with the technical abilities to criticize them and reach a global audience. Assassinating people in other countries is a military/defense issue and has nothing to do with a specific company not wanting to pay for content criticizing them.
Sorry, but, what? The party not wanting to pay for content and the party wanting to proceed with assassinations are one in the same. And the latter translates into pressure against the former. So I'm not sure how you think there are two things here that can be taxonomized into independent issues that don't touch each other.
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.
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.
In the context of this thread, if you consider Apple and country governments around the world one and the same, then our models of the world are too different to productively converse.
> You can even insult them. Maybe not with someone else’s money, but go ahead and put up a website.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
The letter was severely lacking in tact. No employer cared they were critical of Israel, but the timing of the letter was obviously going to raise eyebrows.
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 would expect the same reaction if right after 9/11, a group released a statement saying the US brought the attack on itself.
Yeah I’m thinking I’ll keep my thoughts on MBS killing an American journalist and Putin being insane and Xi being an existential threat to both his people and liberal democracies the world over and the blood on Modi’s hands as he turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to Muslims being slaughtered by Hindus in Gujarat while he was head of that state not to mention his ties to the Hindu gestapo the RSS, to myself.
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.
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.
Not that I disagree, but can you say more about Xi?
Which persons has Xi had assassinated?
He was first name in your reply. I assume you have some evidence right? Cite your sources.
He was first name in your reply. I assume you have some evidence right? Cite your sources.
Which critics of Xi were assassinated?
> You can insult anyone in the free world except Xi from China and MSB from Saudi Arabia.
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.
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.
> The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges owners of platforms [...] face
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"?
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"?
I'm happy to stick with "challenge". It means I can lament how "morally challenged" Apple is :)
I mean if this exact story happened about Sean Hannity I think the reaction would be to break out the champagne and fireworks. They would be showered with praise for years for doing the right thing. I think in the real world "censorship" bad, where censorship means benign things like "yeah, I'm not paying you to turn public sentiment against a budding industry we're trying to enter" or facing any of the natural consequences of people generally being asses in public isn't so cut and dry. It's crazy how little people disrespect the freedom of non-association when it's people they like. Being published by Apple isn't some issue of public accommodation.
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.
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.
Well, Hannity is a driveling liar with no critical thinking or humility or backbone. You can't compare the two with a straight face.
If Jon Stewart were intentionally getting major stories entirely incorrect, fewer people would be defending him.
If Jon Stewart were intentionally getting major stories entirely incorrect, fewer people would be defending him.
You won't find any disagreement here, but that's my point. It clearly fine in principle to drop people and not associate with them, the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay.
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.
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.
>the only thing we're haggling over is how "bad" the person has to be for it to be okay.
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?
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?
I have no idea why Apple even is in the content business at all, it's a low-margin business at best that requires continuous investment or the viewers will go somewhere else. It doesn't even help retain people in their ecosystem as they make apps for other platforms.
It's a growth issue. Apple has done very well with Wall Street with devices in the last two decades, but Wall Street is an insatiable monsters always demanding more growth. Apple doesn't need to pivot, because they've got a tremendously successful device business. But they do need to expand to feed the monster.
Services (Content, iCloud, Fitness+, etc) are just one approach. They're trying AR (Reality Pro), Cars maybe?
Services (Content, iCloud, Fitness+, etc) are just one approach. They're trying AR (Reality Pro), Cars maybe?
I kind of wish businesses were like Unix command line tools. Do one thing and do it well.
In the future if your email service suspects you of being a spammer you will no longer be welcome at your local grocery store.
In the future if your email service suspects you of being a spammer you will no longer be welcome at your local grocery store.
In that reality, what is the real life analog of TTY logic? What about whitespace escaping?
Point being, the Unix philosophy has its own issues, especially around the foundations of how it all glues together.
Point being, the Unix philosophy has its own issues, especially around the foundations of how it all glues together.
I don't think Apple, or any other cmpany to be honest, tech or not, needs "evil Wall Street" to put profit above everything else or be incredibly greedy.
The demands of wall street are infamous for being the difference between sustainably profitable and demanding growth at the detriment of other guiding principles
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.
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.
You’re right about profit. Every company wants profit.
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.
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.
So it was evil wall streetvthat pushed innocent tech companies to pursue quasi monopolies insted of simple greed? I don't buy that narrative.
Products also have lifecycles. What is profitable now won’t be as profitable in 10 years if at all. iPhones seem to have plateaued for example, there’s not much change from 13 to 15, so there’s less incentive to buy one. So Apple does well to try and stay ahead of the curve.
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.
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.
I use a SE 2020. I thought about getting a 14 when they introduced the “satellite phone” feature. Also thought about getting a 15 because it supports recording LOG video files.
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)
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)
>But they do need to expand to feed the monster.
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+.
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+.
At the very least, the entertainment industry was familiar. They were already into the music scene for ~20 years, and had been cutting television content deals for about 15. It's not unreasonable to say that they knew some people they trusted whom they could hire to make it happen.
It reminds me of the show Billions when Axe talks about trying to own a NFL franchise. He's rich enough that it makes no difference, but it's the closest thing to knighthood in the US. When Mike Prince tries to get the Olympics to New York, he's not going to make more money. He's just raising public profile to run for President, and even becoming President won't make him any richer.
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.
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.
I think it's as simple as they have a ton of cash and they don't know what to do with it. This is well-documented. So they're just trying to put it to work. If it works, they get exclusive content that acts to strengthen the Apple ecosystem moat by creating even more reason and network effects to stick with Apple. As someone once told me, "I'd consider other phones and stuff, but Apple has me by the balls."
It has to be integrated into a product and software ecosystem, without running up against the brick wall of licensing content from a practically helpless negotiating position, the same problem that Netflix had to circumvent. In Apple's case they may not profit especially from content but it serves their ecosystem to have content they can be in control of.
Their live sports ambitions make sense to me.
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.
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.
Apple should be pulling away from China as fast as possible; maybe invest in India or in Southeast Asia.
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.
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.
As fast as possible is still probably on the timescale of... at least a decade. Supply chains run deep
They have been. My airpods were made in Vietnam like 3 years ago.
Could it be low ratings and this is face saving attempt by Jon?
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?
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?
Jon should have stuck to comedy… there is a lot of angry news shows as it is.
Could be, there were massive ratings drops[1]. Hard to know how factually correct the anonymous sources blaming other reasons are.
[1] https://www.thewrap.com/the-problem-with-jon-stewart-ratings...
[1] https://www.thewrap.com/the-problem-with-jon-stewart-ratings...
Sure there are "several" people who don't like it. Especially if they or their political representatives are being ridiculed by him. It's hardly a relevant group here, especially because the article points out the actual reasons. So what are you trying to do here?
> highlights a problem for Apple content
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 :-)
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 :-)
Great idea. I like the model of people doing a generic podcasts that I can listen to on a choice of platforms, including Apple Podcasts, and if I want to watch people talking then watch on YouTube or Rumble. BTW, I am mildly put off by some of the conservative content on Rumble, but with YouTube sometimes seeming arbitrary in censoring material, I sometimes will watch Rumble just to support them as an option.
I find the centralization and control by the mega tech companies to be very disturbing. +100 for Mastodon.
I find the centralization and control by the mega tech companies to be very disturbing. +100 for Mastodon.
> and if I want to watch people talking then watch on YouTube or Rumble.
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.
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.
The incredible part is this has been going on for many decades. The things we see and read in mainstream media are heavily censored to give only one side of any story, and not to tell stories that goes against the party line. (The party in this case being money)
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-...
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-...
It would be interesting if there was a podcast type model for video. I guess technically it's all there, and there is, but it's just not popular enough.
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.
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.
> It would be interesting if there was a podcast type model for video.
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.
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.
The issue with video is storage. YouTube gets 100s of hours of new video data every hour. How do you store that?
AFAIK Literally they’re the only ones who deal with that kind of heavy data ingestion.
AFAIK Literally they’re the only ones who deal with that kind of heavy data ingestion.
Podcasting is a distributed medium, that's something the individual distributor has to solve for the podcasts they do - it could be just a single one for example. They know what they produce and can budget storage thereafter. Bandwidth is the unpredictable part in that equation.
Is podcasting distributed, really?
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.
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.
The majority of podcasts I listen to have their RSS feeds on a domain that they control. And I've found them by podcast search in Antennapod. It looks like, to me, that the space is sufficiently diversified that distributors are interchangeable, and that's great.
Television shows aren't tied to any particular platform, either. They just need some platform. Plenty of shows have been dropped by one network and picked up by another, even very well-loved shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and The Expanse. Talking heads like Jon Stewart jump ship all the time. Tucker Carlson was dumped by both CNN and MSNBC before Fox picked him up. Megyn Kelly was on NBC within a month after Fox dumped her.
BitTorrent it
Not sure who to laugh at or blame here really? Do I fault Apple for being a rational profit maximizing entity that thought that perhaps Jon’s show might hurt that goal or do I fault Jon who chose to put the show on Apple TV+ knowing full well they were a giant corp with lots of revenue from China? I mean, he should have known better, no?
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.
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.
> Do I fault Apple for being a rational profit maximizing entity
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.
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.
Yeah I get your point. I was hoping they’d make like Time Warner — or AT&T with John Oliver who often throws shade at the parent company but I guess all parties know it’s in good fun. AT&T is not Apple but I think it’s at least precedent.
It's platform politics, at the end of the day. It's Apple's platform, they choose what to stock it with.
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.
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.
Exactly. This is well said and sums
Up exactly what I was trying convey and failing to.
I don't like blaming people for taking a chance on someone or something. Especially if the stakes are as low as a cancelled show.
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.
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.
I speculate that the entity responsible for The Daily Show is also a profit maximizing entity, and yet that show managed to run for years.
But they didn’t get 20% of their revenue from China.
Right, but I'm sure there were plenty of moments when Jon said things that weren't very nice about friends of his previous masters as well. People should be surprised and alarmed when American companies impose censorship because they do business in China.
I don’t think you can fault Jon too much, there’s a decent chance he saw this coming. If apple wanted to pay him a boatload of money to make a show, why not take that money with the plan always being to walk as soon as they asked him to start making compromises like this.
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.
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.
> Do I fault Apple for being a rational profit maximizing entity
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.
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.
> The show's cancellation is indicative of the kinds of challenges owners of platforms (like Apple, Amazon, Google, and others) face when they are producing content, too. Apple TV+, the iPhone, and other Apple products are used by a wide range of people, and investing in content that may be contentious for key customers or partners could create big problems for the company's overall business
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.
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.
Apple wants to be like Disney, totally unoffensive and unopinionated. Their only religion is money
I expect Jon Stewart would rise to the opportunity to complain about content partnerships with China among other things. The question long term is if someone takes money from big tech to fund a content studio will there be long term bad consequences or will the audience rebel to the content creators side.
Related:
Most of this covered in previous discussions and stories this week
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949512
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194
Most of this covered in previous discussions and stories this week
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37949512
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37950194
Maybe it is as bad as it appears. Something does feel off in their content, Disney-esque.
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?
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 needle a business partner (China)
Why make an adversarial superpower a critical "business partner" in the first place?
Why make an adversarial superpower a critical "business partner" in the first place?
Because it wasn’t always an adversarial superpower nor does our relationship with them have to stay adversarial.
Even disregarding the human rights violations and lack of labor protection, there are fundamental problems with Apple's relationship with China. This isn't a business decision we're talking about, this is a domestic supercorporation using China as a crutch. America turns the other eye because tax money spends well, but the PRC keeps our highest-valued public company on a leash. That's... fucked up, considering the politics of the situation.
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.
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.
Interesting that this never happened to John Oliver with all of the trash he famously talked about AT&T, and more recently Warner/Discovery. It looks like the bar Apple just knocked their teeth out on was set pretty low.
> It looks like the bar Apple just knocked their teeth out on was set pretty low.
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.
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.
Trash talking AT&T / Warner I would consider a very low bar, vs trash talking China and the value of China for Apple would seem existentially larger. If Apple views AI as the cornerstone of their future offerings then that would also seem massive compared to poking fun at a content company.
Well AT&T is ostensibly a telecom. ;)
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.
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.
Apple has a lot more to lose than ATT. I do not see why Apple shareholders would want any of that risk.
Anyone can publish content critical of China or whatever online, it does not need to come from Apple.
Anyone can publish content critical of China or whatever online, it does not need to come from Apple.
Doubtless the censorship also extends to publishing apps that are critical of topics Apple relies on for profit. A walled garden of Apple approved thought
Then host the topics on websites.
Most US smartphones are Apple, now. Content increasingly being withheld from the broader internet and confined to apps. Apps which Apple has discretion over.
Who is stopping content on the “broader” internet? Does iOS block certain videos from playing in the browser?
Confined != Blocked
Countless hours are spent consuming content on platforms controlled by a tiny number of people.
Countless hours are spent consuming content on platforms controlled by a tiny number of people.
And? The point is Jon Stewart can make his own website and sell his content, and people using Apple’s devices can consume it.
And it is pretty frictionless, all people have to do is type or search for the website address.
And it is pretty frictionless, all people have to do is type or search for the website address.
It's really not complicated, lots of people's attention consuming content, and lots of people's time producing content is focused on major platforms that censor for political reasons, this is sub optimal.
Yes, the internet still exits and you can use it, I am aware of that.
Yes, the internet still exits and you can use it, I am aware of that.
AT&T/Warner Discovery/HBO are comfortable participating in the occasional light comedy roast that John Oliver subjects them to, because it shows they’re a good sport and doesn’t do them any harm.
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.
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.
Well AT&T and Warner/Discovery own the show, so one significant difference is it's a joke about just their company that they can determine if they're okay with or not, and don't have to worry about losing anything due to external third party retaliation.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17oCQakzIl8
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17oCQakzIl8
it's a good point. there are two solutions to this problem. a) you do what they have done and cancel the show, thereby setting an unpleasant precedent of having to police content, or b) you say that we do not enforce a company line on our TV shows, and you save a lot of future hassle
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
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
I am amazed that people feel amused over Jon Stewart insulting a guy over 2A rights.
The guest was respectful, the host was vulgar.
The guest was respectful, the host was vulgar.
That type of content has been widespread for many years now, it helps people feel superior and better about their views.
If you disarm everyone, you effectively give every criminal a 30 min window to do everything they want and leave, including extortion. Or, have a police state with a 1 police station for every house.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Agree. I wish the anti-gun laws passed in the 60s by the NRA and governor Reagan against the BPP were scrapped, and that BLM and the true rednecks from difranchised towns find in history new ways to fights for their rights, so I'm very pro-gun I guess.
But i'm under no illusion that guns without control makes the society more violent and less trustful.
But i'm under no illusion that guns without control makes the society more violent and less trustful.
Not a fantasy, a historical reality. And with a direct relation to 2A.
Japan is formidable but they are effectively a vassal state, always remember that.
Japan is formidable but they are effectively a vassal state, always remember that.
> 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.
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.
It is a vassal state. They pay for military protection, and have many duties and restrictions as a part of their terms of surrender.
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.
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.
I see what you are saying, but also, Japan can do things to reverse a number of those restrictions, some of which are functionally self-imposed, can't it?
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".
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".
You just keep checking more boxes into what fits the description of a vassal state.
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.
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.
Another straw man argument. If every state had the same licensing, background check, recommendation, and training requirements as a state like New Jersey, we would not have a gun problem in this country. There would be very few mass shootings. Ensuring that we treat gun ownership with the same respect and modicum of care as car ownership is all that's necessary here.
The daily show is looking for a host.
I can promise Jon Stewart isn't interested.
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.
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.
I bet he could negotiate change of format.
How far can journalists stretch this? He got cancelled by a tv platform exclusively for Apple users. Not exactly the end of the world.
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.