Agreed. I think Cook, like the rest of us, truly understands how corporations are incredibly powerful, and thus could use such power to promote an ideal of equality.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Talks Russian Election Interference, Fake News and Tax Reform in Nightly News Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
SJW Tim Cook is at it again. Show how Apple is on the side of whatever is the en vogue thing to fight for this week.
Pay no attention to the fact that Apple cow-tows to civil rights suppressor China at every turn to sell into that market. My personal favorite is the non-cellular cellular Apple Watch you can buy there.
If all else fails, deflect.
The problem with this is that Cook believes the fake news. He represents half the country that hides behind fake news, and pushes political correctness to the extreme all just to make money.
He represents powerful people in Hollywood and Democrats, that value power and profit over values. We know this today because of the cesspit that has been uncovered in Hollywood and its ties to the Democrats, which no one will talk about. Everyone knew about the trashing of values in Hollywood, but as long as the money flowed no one cared. That Cook's and most other major Democrat's philosophy. Sure they'll do interviews to to fool people into voting for them, but their actions prove a different motive.
The only way being talked about, by Cook's and his allies, to attack fake news is to limit freedom of speech by defining fake news. That is what Apple already does with its extreme political correctness and that is not the answer. The correct answer is transparency, if we knew where information came from, people could decide individually, but alas that is not the solution on the table anyplace because it limits the control of money and puts the power in the hands of people.
Cook's comment about 40% isn't correct. When a corporation repatriates overseas earnings, they can deduct the tax already paid in the country of origin from the U.S. rate. They're only complaining about 40% because they intentionally set up shop in Ireland so that they could have a tax rate that is almost non-existent.
[doublepost=1509628484][/doublepost]
The correct answer is for Facebook and other tech companies to admit that they're also media companies and have a responsibility for what appears on their platform.
[doublepost=1509628484][/doublepost]
The correct answer is for Facebook and other tech companies to admit that they're also media companies and have a responsibility for what appears on their platform.
Last edited:
No!!!! It is not FaceBook's, Twitter's or other's responsibility to censor my speech. Period. It is your responsibility if you are going to receive my free speech to determine its validity. You can't hand that decision over to some corporation without it being absolutely abused. There is no law that will protect free speech once censorship is allowed.
The problem today is exactly that these corporations already censor free speech, but they want to law to be on their side so they can be more open about it. Most people I know would never interact with these tech companies because of this. But half the country thinks they can get their political agenda progressed if they suppress the opposition. That is not freedom, it is oppression, and its un-American and contrary to the Constitution.
This is truly amazing. They are directly aligned with China, as you say the civil rights suppressor, all whilst pushing their SJW agenda. It truly shows their glaring hypocrisy that all his defenders blissfully ignore.
You're making a common mistake: private companies are not required to allow anyone's speech. Facebook can turn down any type of advertisement or ban any type of communication content that they choose on their own platform.
If Tim Cook had right-leaning views: “He has a right to get political! Stop attacking his freedom of speech, fascist liberals!”
The problem is that you make it sound extremely black and white. You make it seem as if, just because Tim Cook sides with Democrats and liberal views, that he must be in on all the corruption happening behind the scenes and is in on it.
At the end of the day corruption and abuse of power can be found on both "sides" (democrats and republicans), but that doesn't define everyone in that "group".
What matters are their principles in general, and it seems pretty logical to me to pick the side that believes in equality, giving everyone a fair chance, trying to reduce negative impact on the earth, etc. They all sound like pretty sane things.
Every group will always have their flaws, but if you dismiss everything quickly just because of that, you'd never get anywhere.
Russians hacked the election through Facebook? For national security we probably should nationalize Facebook and google. Or at least they need closer surveillance. If Russians can hack elections through Facebook...that means Facebook can hack elections.
Oh, I understand and agree with this completely.
But what Facebook wants is to censor people and get kudos for being a kinder and gentler company instead of the despicable company it is. They have the right, but I also have the right to point out their real behavior and to not let them hide behind their marketing image and duplicitous behavior. And I have the right to not let them hide behind government laws made to hide their real nature.
Facebook and other tech companies don't value free speech, they don't value equality, and they don't value diversity. They have these programs and market themselves as being this for the same reason Harvey Weinstein was a ultra liberal, to get a free pass from liberals and the media, to avoid negative publicity, and to be able to hide their true nature.
No liberal cares if people are two-faced, i.e. saying one thing, but behaving in another way. Hollywood has done this for years, Democrats do this, and all large corporation do it. And its all good because what really happens is not important to liberals and the media. For individuals it takes a lot of time to figure out duplicitous behavior, so they carry on thinking they would not do it, so others probably don't. But they are wrong.
If you prefer people based on their race, then you are racist. Look up the definition. Any organization that has racial diversity rules to prefer minorities is by definition racist. But no, we've allowed the word to redefined.
If you prefer people based on their sex then you are sexist. Look up the definition. But today you can only be sexist if you prefer males. Prefer females or some of the other genders then its ok to be sexist.
Any organization that fires people because the organization does not agree with their personal opinion does not value equality, they value inequality. For example, this applies to any organization that favors liberals over conservatives. A persons personal opinion should not matter if they don't express it on company time. But liberals can express liberal ideas on company time, any time, all the time. That is NOT equality.
In summary, what these high-tech companies want to do is dominate regardless of what it takes and they'll destroy free speech, or any other values the second those values aren't leading to domination. Yet people in general think its all about good motives.
You want to know why the media is suffering so much, why the NFL is suffering, why Hollywood is suffering, and why companies like Apple will, if they don't get back on the values path, suffer? Its because half the country is tired of being told they don't matter, tired of being lied about, tired of being taken advantage of, tired of being oppressed, tired of being discriminated against, etc.
Cook’s hyperbole would be tolerable and convincing if he clarified his boasts as his predecessor did. And if his evidence were something else other than units sold.
If marketshare is the measure, the iPhone only changed 15% of the world. Android phones continue to have an 85% marketshare worldwide.
Perhaps it’s a chicken vs. egg argument, but the phones themselves—regardless of brand—didn’t create trends that changed society... sharing platforms like social media and messaging apps inspired people.
That's not how it happened. Read up on the recent meetings with representatives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google who have been taking questions and testifying before Congress.
Last edited:
I’d prefer comprehensive tax reform that makes the entire tax code more simple. Most companies don’t pay anywhere near the tax rate with all the deductions they can take. We also have an enormous debt to pay and cutting taxes won’t ever generate enough growth to offset the lost revenue. This really isn’t a fiscally responsible plan.
The new plan limits deductions.
Corporate taxes are different from individual. Companies can and do move operations around and play tax jurisdictions against each other. Rates in the rest of the world are much lower. 20% puts us squarely in the middle.
If they did have any impact, they want you to think coverage of it is 'fake news' so that they can do it again next time, with further success.
I haven't seen anyone on any side of the political spectrum who claims they 'controlled' the election, or that they know how effective or ineffective the Russian operations were, but its telling that most of the key areas they targeted - fact, not "fake news" - were many of the same areas that tipped the electoral college in Trump's favor.
I do think there's great irony that Russians tried to influence the election by sponsoring fake news, yet some on the right think the reporting of that fact is, in itself, fake news.
We will learn from the past or repeat it, I guess.
I don't disagree that the rate should probably be lower. Like I said, most companies don't end up paying them anyway and can move their cash to wherever it's cheaper for them to hold it, I just think it's a tough sell to individuals when by most measures corporations are doing extremely well (see Apple's cash reserves), while wages are more or less stagnant.
And not to mention the fact that this will add to the debt.