Michelle Obama talks entrepreneurship, social issues, more at WWDC

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    JakeTele said:
    YOU are the one who is making it "political". Her and her husband's party affiliation have NOTHING to do with advocating for women rights to be educated across the world and for more women to be accepted in the male dominated tech industry. Regardless of party she was a FIRST LADY. She NEVER once crossed the line by stating what government should be doing right now or by pushing a politically charged agenda. Your idea that they should get someone less polarizing because some politically over sensitive nuts out there may not like it, is ridiculous. Grow up & try to stay away from the conspiracy garbage. It's WWDC not a poltical convention. 

    P.S. Tim is homosexual do you think everyone has a positive opinion on that? Should we get someone who is "more widely accepted" to host WWDC also while we pretend to follow your play book?
    Great first post however, you need to reply to the specific post or edit it now to make it clear.  As is there is no way of knowing.
  • Reply 22 of 36
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    MacPro said:
    How cool, wish I'd been there.

    Close thread fast before the haters come out!
    Lol, well, that's a bit of a straw man. Disagreeing with other's viewpoints doesn't equal hate. That said, I don't think it was the right call to have Michelle Obama there.* I mean, the messages were great.. diversity, empowering women (who, on a global scale, are often horribly oppressed by ancient patriarchal thinking). But I don't think Apple needs a politically polarizing figure to send those messages.

    *(I hate to make a negative comment on a DED article, which I usually love. But I think this is an important point/discussion to have).

    Unfortunately, it seems that Apple has been taking some unfortunate stances related to politics that go beyond protecting individual rights, and it's not surprising that climate change became part of the discussion, since it's become such a political issue. It's particularly unfortunate as the science is still unsettled: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/2965632/#Comment_2965632 (comment ~52, about the ice core samples).

    Just to be clear, overall I think Tim Cook is doing an excellent job, and I couldn’t imagine anyone better for the role at this time in Apple’s history. However, it’s really unfortunate that Apple seems to be making some politically motivated missteps.

    While having Michelle Obama talk may indeed be inspiring for many (particularly young women), it is *also* exclusionary to people who don’t identify with her politics, which I think is very unfortunate. Contradictory to many peoples' beliefs, no one side (right or left) has a monopoly on the right answers. Apple should rise above the partisan fray. Apple should be for everyone.

    Slightly OT, on the subject of the environment:

    I think most people, myself included, feel the environment is a very important issue. To that end, I hope, as both an Apple fan and as an Apple shareholder, that Apple doubles down on recycling, forest preservation/sustainability, and responsibly obtaining resources. I actually feel very strongly about this, and would even be happy for Apple to use its expertise in habitat preservation and recycling to provide environmental initiatives as a service, by giving customers the opportunity to purchase offsets (akin to carbon markets) for their personal recycling and paper consumption (as these particular environmental issues are current, concrete, impactful, and measurable); Apple is one of the handful of institutions that I would actually trust to do something like this.

    "It's particularly unfortunate as the science is still unsettled" The medical world warns people to not smoke because medical science has discovered a direct link between cigarettes and cancer. However not everyone who chooses to smoke will develop cancer so I guess "the science is still unsettled"?

    Apple takes global warming very seriously, as shown by their efforts to use green energy and make products without hazardous chemicals and mostly recyclable parts. How was anything in talk a divergence from Apple's history of progressive policies. Do you fear Apple with go bankrupt because they promote these policies? If you do not wish to support Apple as a company because you find it "too political" you should look into another company which sells similar products and services which is what I do when I believe a company promotes an agenda which I morally and or politically find opposes my values. 
    dementuschikanronn
  • Reply 23 of 36
    rolyaTjrolyaTj Posts: 3member
    Michele Obama @ this event? For as much as I admire Apple and it's products, it's very hard to stomach the political implications of her address. I agree with those who feel that Tim Cook and Apple should stay out of politics !!
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 24 of 36
    spice-boy said:
    MacPro said:
    How cool, wish I'd been there.

    Close thread fast before the haters come out!
    Lol, well, that's a bit of a straw man. Disagreeing with other's viewpoints doesn't equal hate. That said, I don't think it was the right call to have Michelle Obama there.* I mean, the messages were great.. diversity, empowering women (who, on a global scale, are often horribly oppressed by ancient patriarchal thinking). But I don't think Apple needs a politically polarizing figure to send those messages.

    *(I hate to make a negative comment on a DED article, which I usually love. But I think this is an important point/discussion to have).

    Unfortunately, it seems that Apple has been taking some unfortunate stances related to politics that go beyond protecting individual rights, and it's not surprising that climate change became part of the discussion, since it's become such a political issue. It's particularly unfortunate as the science is still unsettled: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/comment/2965632/#Comment_2965632 (comment ~52, about the ice core samples).

    Just to be clear, overall I think Tim Cook is doing an excellent job, and I couldn’t imagine anyone better for the role at this time in Apple’s history. However, it’s really unfortunate that Apple seems to be making some politically motivated missteps.

    While having Michelle Obama talk may indeed be inspiring for many (particularly young women), it is *also* exclusionary to people who don’t identify with her politics, which I think is very unfortunate. Contradictory to many peoples' beliefs, no one side (right or left) has a monopoly on the right answers. Apple should rise above the partisan fray. Apple should be for everyone.

    Slightly OT, on the subject of the environment:

    I think most people, myself included, feel the environment is a very important issue. To that end, I hope, as both an Apple fan and as an Apple shareholder, that Apple doubles down on recycling, forest preservation/sustainability, and responsibly obtaining resources. I actually feel very strongly about this, and would even be happy for Apple to use its expertise in habitat preservation and recycling to provide environmental initiatives as a service, by giving customers the opportunity to purchase offsets (akin to carbon markets) for their personal recycling and paper consumption (as these particular environmental issues are current, concrete, impactful, and measurable); Apple is one of the handful of institutions that I would actually trust to do something like this.

    "It's particularly unfortunate as the science is still unsettled" The medical world warns people to not smoke because medical science has discovered a direct link between cigarettes and cancer. However not everyone who chooses to smoke will develop cancer so I guess "the science is still unsettled"?

    Apple takes global warming very seriously, as shown by their efforts to use green energy and make products without hazardous chemicals and mostly recyclable parts. How was anything in talk a divergence from Apple's history of progressive policies. Do you fear Apple with go bankrupt because they promote these policies? If you do not wish to support Apple as a company because you find it "too political" you should look into another company which sells similar products and services which is what I do when I believe a company promotes an agenda which I morally and or politically find opposes my values. 
    Are you replying to my post? I'm sorry to say, but your reply makes very little sense, and you make assumptions about me that are clearly and directly contradicted by statements I made in the post you just quoted. Also, global warming is very different from issues like recycling and hazardous chemicals (i.e. obtaining resources responsibly), which, if you read my post, was also made clear in my post. Lastly, your analogy to smoking makes no sense at all. Please come up with a counter argument, or just agree to disagree, but simply creating a straw man of accusing me of not believing anything unless 100% is known about that thing is not helpful. I did provide a specific justification for my statement, however. If you care to discuss it I'd be happy to reply.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    I think people like myself are just distressed about the double standard at play. If Michelle Obama was a conservative she'd have people staging walkouts and maybe even protesters outside. And there would probably be calls to boycott Apple after this. And the comments on this thread would already be closed because they'd be flooded with outrageous comments. Tim Cook would probably be accused of "legitimizing her". 

    There's a disturbing trend where it seems the only free speech is leftist speech. And if I disagree with you politically I'm a hater. 

    I'm a classical liberal, and that makes me a conservative now.
    patchythepirateSpamSandwich
  • Reply 26 of 36
    78Bandit78Bandit Posts: 238member

    This was a developer conference and was not the time to invite someone with an obvious political agenda to speak on diversity and opportunity.  A much more appropriate speaker would have been someone like the CEO of Ford or GM to talk about how the apps developers are writing can positively affect the capabilities of vehicles in the future, the CEO of a gaming company to talk about the ever increasing complexity of mobile gaming and how it will drive industry growth, or even a banking CEO to discuss how the apps are allowing the more efficient flow of funding between consumers and providers.

    Tim Cook seems to be focusing his energy on social issues.  Almost every quote from him in the media is related to something other than Apple products.  He is free to have his personal opinions but he is falling into that hubris trap where he thinks the company he is entrusted to run is an extension of himself.  It isn't.

    SpamSandwichpatchythepirate
  • Reply 27 of 36
    78Bandit said:

    Tim Cook seems to be focusing his energy on social issues.  Almost every quote from him in the media is related to something other than Apple products.  He is free to have his personal opinions but he is falling into that hubris trap where he thinks the company he is entrusted to run is an extension of himself.  It isn't.

    I agree. Although they still seem to be making good products. So as long as they keep doing that I'll be a happy investor. As long as they keep their eye on the most important ball : making great products.
  • Reply 28 of 36
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    rolyaTj said:
    Michele Obama @ this event? For as much as I admire Apple and it's products, it's very hard to stomach the political implications of her address. I agree with those who feel that Tim Cook and Apple should stay out of politics !!
    Please buy stuff from Microsoft, ah wait they are a progressive company as well. I know Google makes a good phone..... never mind, maybe one of the Chinese phones, darn China is not the most progressive company in regards to fighting climate change. 
    ronn
  • Reply 29 of 36
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member

    78Bandit said:

    Tim Cook seems to be focusing his energy on social issues.  Almost every quote from him in the media is related to something other than Apple products.  He is free to have his personal opinions but he is falling into that hubris trap where he thinks the company he is entrusted to run is an extension of himself.  It isn't.

    I agree. Although they still seem to be making good products. So as long as they keep doing that I'll be a happy investor. As long as they keep their eye on the most important ball : making great products.
    I think the survival of humankind is more important the touch 3D.
    dementuschikanronn
  • Reply 30 of 36
    spice-boy said:
    I think the survival of humankind is more important the touch 3D.
    The strongest ideas can withstand scrutiny. Only weak ideas suppress opposition. Pretending that humanity will be extinct in 100 years or however long it takes is just a way of shutting down debate. It's not a persuasive argument.
    edited June 2017 patchythepirate
  • Reply 31 of 36
    First Al Gore on the board, now Michelle Obama speaking at the WWDC.  For people saying it had nothing to do with politics, I disagree completely. Can you imagine if they had Melania Trump there speaking? No politician or ex-first lady belongs at the WWDC. It is a developer conference.

    "Obama discussed her experiences in the White House, including efforts to address childhood obesity, support military veterans and their families, to inspire young people to achieve higher education and global efforts to help girls attend school. She specifically noted that there are still many areas around the world where girls still aren't considered worthy of an education. "

    Ok, fine, but zero to do with developing software and nothing that people don't already know. I'm sure she got a nice speaking fee though.
    patchythepirateSpamSandwich
  • Reply 32 of 36
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,071member
    First Al Gore on the board, now Michelle Obama speaking at the WWDC.  For people saying it had nothing to do with politics, I disagree completely. Can you imagine if they had Melania Trump there speaking? No politician or ex-first lady belongs at the WWDC. It is a developer conference.

    "Obama discussed her experiences in the White House, including efforts to address childhood obesity, support military veterans and their families, to inspire young people to achieve higher education and global efforts to help girls attend school. She specifically noted that there are still many areas around the world where girls still aren't considered worthy of an education. "

    Ok, fine, but zero to do with developing software and nothing that people don't already know. I'm sure she got a nice speaking fee though.
    They can invite Melanie Trump next year but it will probably be the exact same speech.
    ronnanton zuykovSpamSandwichjSnivelysingularity
  • Reply 33 of 36
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    kevin kee said:
    I try to avoid this kind of discussion, least of all it turns to be out of control argument and admin have to close the thread due to political sensitivity.
    "Political sensitivity" has little to do with it.

    Some forum-goers behavior has everything to do with why we close them. I've discussed this at length already, regarding front page Google indexing versus Forums versus Political Outsider.

    That said, it's time for everybody to read the commenting guidelines, as we've cleaned up some comments over the line of our commenting guidelines. As a reminder, you're all being watched. The ability to comment on political-related posts has only been reinstated because I petitioned for you lot to have it. It can be easily shut down again, as can the entire forums -- as they drive only a small proportion of traffic and take a lot of labor.
    jSnively said:
    Michelle Obama was invited by Apple (or perhaps by one person at Apple) to speak at WWDC on issues like entrepreneurship? Why? She's not an entrepreneur. She's not known for historically speaking out in favor of capitalism. She's a lawyer. This was a 100% political calculation on the part of Apple. And if she's charging anything like her husband recently charged Wall Street to speak, she's being paid a substantial amount.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

    I think next quarter I will vote in favor of any and every shareholder proposal requiring Apple to divulge these kinds of politically motivated expenditures.
    I don't feel like they touched on anything she was particularly unqualified to talk about. She spent a lot of her time as first lady working on equality issues (especially for women, but also for minorities), and as first lady she had access to a lot of people and information most don't. Besides, at the end of the day her values line up really well with Apple's as a company, and those values are extremely important to Apple as a company. Jobs made sure of that a very long time ago.
    What a load of bollocks.

    Poor moderation and adminstraton of this site has turned it into a ghost town over the past few years.

    Add the blatant political bias and censorship that we're seeing now and it'll be interesting to see what the future holds for AppleInsider.


    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 34 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,803moderator
    gtr said:
    kevin kee said:
    I try to avoid this kind of discussion, least of all it turns to be out of control argument and admin have to close the thread due to political sensitivity.
    "Political sensitivity" has little to do with it.

    Some forum-goers behavior has everything to do with why we close them. I've discussed this at length already, regarding front page Google indexing versus Forums versus Political Outsider.

    That said, it's time for everybody to read the commenting guidelines, as we've cleaned up some comments over the line of our commenting guidelines. As a reminder, you're all being watched. The ability to comment on political-related posts has only been reinstated because I petitioned for you lot to have it. It can be easily shut down again, as can the entire forums -- as they drive only a small proportion of traffic and take a lot of labor.
    jSnively said:
    Michelle Obama was invited by Apple (or perhaps by one person at Apple) to speak at WWDC on issues like entrepreneurship? Why? She's not an entrepreneur. She's not known for historically speaking out in favor of capitalism. She's a lawyer. This was a 100% political calculation on the part of Apple. And if she's charging anything like her husband recently charged Wall Street to speak, she's being paid a substantial amount.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

    I think next quarter I will vote in favor of any and every shareholder proposal requiring Apple to divulge these kinds of politically motivated expenditures.
    I don't feel like they touched on anything she was particularly unqualified to talk about. She spent a lot of her time as first lady working on equality issues (especially for women, but also for minorities), and as first lady she had access to a lot of people and information most don't. Besides, at the end of the day her values line up really well with Apple's as a company, and those values are extremely important to Apple as a company. Jobs made sure of that a very long time ago.
    What a load of bollocks.

    Poor moderation and adminstraton of this site has turned it into a ghost town over the past few years.

    Add the blatant political bias and censorship that we're seeing now and it'll be interesting to see what the future holds for AppleInsider.
    Everything the admins said there is true. You think it's censorship but you don't always see the abusive remarks that people make before they are removed and just assume it's suppressing opinions. People have become more polarized and aggressive in their politics and it escalates more quickly to abuse and derailment than other topics. This site is an Apple site, not a political one. Politics just inevitably affects Apple now and again.

    AppleInsider's traffic is far more than the forum. They have over 400,000 twitter followers. Search engines index sites like these in a matter of minutes so when it picks up abusive commentary, that has a negative effect on the site, especially now that ad services have to watch what content they associate with. It's just easier to shut down political commentary. Most of the abuse reports come from those threads, hardly from any other discussions. Members here are civilized in threads that don't concern politics. People can make their own threads in PO about that kind of thing.

    A couple of people have mentioned political bias but not all politics are equal. If one political side makes it their aim to help and support people from all different walks of life and the other primarily looks out for themselves and actively tries to hurt people different from them, those aren't equally divisive politics, one is inherently more offensive than the other. That's why you have things like over 100 major companies opposing divisive politics but that has never happened with progressive politics. That's also why people protest divisive political events and not ones with progressive politics. Inclusion doesn't have an equal effect to exclusion. That's not bias, that's just the nature of the politics.

    The more polarized that people have become in their views, the less people even want to associate with people who have different views from them. People get tired of hearing the same commentary that they'll never agree with being reiterated and it just leads to endless arguments. That's why the forum has tools for members to individually block that out and do their own thought policing. If a discussion becomes a mess in spite of this, then admins/mods clean it up. This actually rarely happens now, there are about 60 active threads every 24-48 hours and it's only once in a while one gets shut down.

    The commenting guidelines here are reasonable and allow for enough expression of opposing views and it results in conversations that have far more depth and civility that exist in most online discussion forums. If there's specific things people are not happy with, leave specific feedback in the feedback forum about what is considered to be examples of bias, censorship etc. When people make general comments about censorship and bias without examples, it usually means they aren't happy not being allowed to express things that are widely considered offensive but are considered normal to people with more extreme political views. There are plenty of places online that are better suited for that, the PO forum may be one of them.
    jSnivelysingularity
  • Reply 35 of 36
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Marvin said:
    gtr said:
    kevin kee said:
    I try to avoid this kind of discussion, least of all it turns to be out of control argument and admin have to close the thread due to political sensitivity.
    "Political sensitivity" has little to do with it.

    Some forum-goers behavior has everything to do with why we close them. I've discussed this at length already, regarding front page Google indexing versus Forums versus Political Outsider.

    That said, it's time for everybody to read the commenting guidelines, as we've cleaned up some comments over the line of our commenting guidelines. As a reminder, you're all being watched. The ability to comment on political-related posts has only been reinstated because I petitioned for you lot to have it. It can be easily shut down again, as can the entire forums -- as they drive only a small proportion of traffic and take a lot of labor.
    jSnively said:
    Michelle Obama was invited by Apple (or perhaps by one person at Apple) to speak at WWDC on issues like entrepreneurship? Why? She's not an entrepreneur. She's not known for historically speaking out in favor of capitalism. She's a lawyer. This was a 100% political calculation on the part of Apple. And if she's charging anything like her husband recently charged Wall Street to speak, she's being paid a substantial amount.

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/25/15419740/obama-speaking-fee

    I think next quarter I will vote in favor of any and every shareholder proposal requiring Apple to divulge these kinds of politically motivated expenditures.
    I don't feel like they touched on anything she was particularly unqualified to talk about. She spent a lot of her time as first lady working on equality issues (especially for women, but also for minorities), and as first lady she had access to a lot of people and information most don't. Besides, at the end of the day her values line up really well with Apple's as a company, and those values are extremely important to Apple as a company. Jobs made sure of that a very long time ago.
    What a load of bollocks.

    Poor moderation and adminstraton of this site has turned it into a ghost town over the past few years.

    Add the blatant political bias and censorship that we're seeing now and it'll be interesting to see what the future holds for AppleInsider.
    Everything the admins said there is true. You think it's censorship but you don't always see the abusive remarks that people make before they are removed and just assume it's suppressing opinions. People have become more polarized and aggressive in their politics and it escalates more quickly to abuse and derailment than other topics. This site is an Apple site, not a political one. Politics just inevitably affects Apple now and again.

    AppleInsider's traffic is far more than the forum. They have over 400,000 twitter followers. Search engines index sites like these in a matter of minutes so when it picks up abusive commentary, that has a negative effect on the site, especially now that ad services have to watch what content they associate with. It's just easier to shut down political commentary. Most of the abuse reports come from those threads, hardly from any other discussions. Members here are civilized in threads that don't concern politics. People can make their own threads in PO about that kind of thing.

    A couple of people have mentioned political bias but not all politics are equal. If one political side makes it their aim to help and support people from all different walks of life and the other primarily looks out for themselves and actively tries to hurt people different from them, those aren't equally divisive politics, one is inherently more offensive than the other. That's why you have things like over 100 major companies opposing divisive politics but that has never happened with progressive politics. That's also why people protest divisive political events and not ones with progressive politics. Inclusion doesn't have an equal effect to exclusion. That's not bias, that's just the nature of the politics.

    The more polarized that people have become in their views, the less people even want to associate with people who have different views from them. People get tired of hearing the same commentary that they'll never agree with being reiterated and it just leads to endless arguments. That's why the forum has tools for members to individually block that out and do their own thought policing. If a discussion becomes a mess in spite of this, then admins/mods clean it up. This actually rarely happens now, there are about 60 active threads every 24-48 hours and it's only once in a while one gets shut down.

    The commenting guidelines here are reasonable and allow for enough expression of opposing views and it results in conversations that have far more depth and civility that exist in most online discussion forums. If there's specific things people are not happy with, leave specific feedback in the feedback forum about what is considered to be examples of bias, censorship etc. When people make general comments about censorship and bias without examples, it usually means they aren't happy not being allowed to express things that are widely considered offensive but are considered normal to people with more extreme political views. There are plenty of places online that are better suited for that, the PO forum may be one of them.
    I know this subject has been addressed ad nauseam, but how about just have the entire editorial team stop posting AI stories with political content in them if these stories are so 'toxic' for advertisers and do nothing but generate comments that AI is unwilling to allow on the site? I think everyone at AI is aware of what constitutes "controversial" opinion pieces.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    jSnivelyjSnively Posts: 365administrator
    .[..]
    I know this subject has been addressed ad nauseam, but how about just have the entire editorial team stop posting AI stories with political content in them if these stories are so 'toxic' for advertisers and do nothing but generate comments that AI is unwilling to allow on the site? I think everyone at AI is aware of what constitutes "controversial" opinion pieces.
    I've addressed this many times on these forums. We still have to cover the intersection between Apple and politics, because we are a site about Apple, and Apple cares deeply about issues that have become political. That information is relevant to not only shareholders, but people who are genuinely interested in Apple as a company and culture. That is, after all, the service we provide at our core. Information about Apple.

    Because of the extreme positions of some forum users, we have had to start closing or moderating content that mentions the word Trump, makes reference to the environment or equality issues, etc. Honestly, we have to keep an extra watchful eye on content that features minorities. It's wholly about addressing the areas where the fires keep popping up, not any political agenda. Even-handed contrarian responses don't get automatically moderated out when they appear. Look at this thread.

    An editorial piece is just that. We have no interest in muzzling our staff, and they are professional enough to not take extreme hard-line political positions in the content they write. You are welcome to disagree with that, and feedback if you feel we mishandle something is appreciated (feedback forum), but again, we are not a site about politics, even though politics may get interwoven with our coverage of Apple from time to time.

    I believe we can keep the site advertiser-and-family friendly while still giving those users an outlet, in the form of political outsider, to express their viewpoints and pick their fights. Marvin is completely correct in everything he had said. You don't know the true definition of skittish until you've dealt directly with a brand. Moreover, with the way things are headed in the space, it's only a matter of time before algorithms plant a huge red flag on the site because of some of that content.
    singularity
Sign In or Register to comment.