In the US, a big part of the anti-union movement's success has been the fact that states retain enough autonomy to rig the rules in pro- or anti-union fashion, while also competing for business that can typically be located anywhere in the CONUS.
As a result, it's a race to the bottom as governors try to pursue business-friendly policies to attract jobs. And on the other "side", to pursue union-friendly policies to attract votes.
Both of which tug decisions to the extremes, the better to win their base, rather than seeking compromise that's acceptable to both parties.
One reason proletarian internationalism remained a hotly debated topic in communist theory for decades.
I read a study on international power polarities, and they noted that truly independent tripolar was among the most stable configurations from a game theory perspective.
Broadly summarizing, the potential for the remaining tie-breaker to defect to either side tends to keep participants honest, even if they're bitterly opposed.
Consumers don't care about these schemes because they largely don't know the details.
There should be clear, tobacco-esque disclosure requirements of this sort of thing on the product packaging.
If Samsung et al. want to data mine their customers in exchange for lower pricing, they're welcome to do so. What should not be legal is doing so and appearing the same as a company who does not do so.
You may not. But others certainly do. Otherwise recycled toilet paper wouldn't be stocked.
Beyond that, to use the same analogy, one brand might be dump their bleaching agents in the ocean.
It's up to the companies if they want to trumpet their behavior loudly or say nothing about it. And it's up to consumers if they care about whatever type of behavior is involved.
There are a huge number of people who claim they support the Confederate flag in honor of those who lost their lives under it.
Okay. It was a racist and oppressive government, but I can understand that logic. People gave their lives, and even sacrifice in favor of an unjust cause is sacrifice.
That said... if that's what it's really about for them, then why didn't those folks say something when the flag was claimed by racists and white supremacists? Why didn't they defend it from those who would appropriate the symbol?
Silence carries its own liability.
And a lot of 8chan-style behavior that isn't guilty of outright instigation is certainly guilty of immoral silence.
I'm in favor of extra-legal filtering, according to a company's morals, as long as market alternatives exists.
If speech crosses the line, law enforcement should pursue and prosecute.
Short of that (e.g. the "we were just joking" crowd), the best possible aggregate outcome seems like it would be companies making independent moral judgements and acting on them.
If Cloudflare doesn't want to be associated with 8chan, they refuse them as a customer.
Other customers are then free to judge Cloudflare for that action and use / not use them as they decide.
This seems far preferable to more draconian, government-enforced options.
Companies are inherently political, and a diversity of options is the healthiest ecosystem.
Not, this requires that we have functioning alternatives. For something like 8chan, Cloudflare's services are probably avoidable, but there's a market penetration at with "must serve" should be considered.
I have a complete lack of faith that any institution whose day-to-day experience completely differs from their catastrophic risk scenario is ever truly prepared.
The personal and organizational strain of maintaining constant vigilance against an invisible enemy is simply too high.
People get lazy, complacent, and think they're more prepared than they are. That's just human nature.
I see your *, so I assume you do know SuperMicro is a US company? And that the breaches reportedly happened at local Chinese subcontractors?
Everything you say seems to be valid for Chinese companies. Which SuperMicro... isn't.
If they want to start auditing their incoming supply from China more closely, or even shift production elsewhere, there's nothing except cost stopping them from doing so.
And the rub is that any competitor also using Chinese supply (for cost savings) is vulnerable to the same attack. SuperMicro was presumably targeted because of their size and global customers.
It seems like many people take communist-like propaganda at face value.
The Chinese government would like to have almost-complete control. The Chinese government publicly says it has high levels of control.
But when they can't effectively regulate their medical (mass HIV infection from blood plasma needle reuse), food (tainted milk), or chemical (unlicensed mass CFC production) industries... reality seems to differ.
As a result, it's a race to the bottom as governors try to pursue business-friendly policies to attract jobs. And on the other "side", to pursue union-friendly policies to attract votes.
Both of which tug decisions to the extremes, the better to win their base, rather than seeking compromise that's acceptable to both parties.
One reason proletarian internationalism remained a hotly debated topic in communist theory for decades.