I think @BryanLucas’ point was that no matter what we think, say, or do, politicians pass what their corporate donors want. Without that countervailing force from them, the politicians would be less disinclined to heed the populace. The options of politicians for whom to vote is at least as constrained by similar means, as well.
That said, particularly in the case of tech, as critical as it is that civic norms and social moorings affect a stable and level playing field, legislation and enforcement, particularly for technologists, should never take precedence over the imperative that innovation empower users, both individually and collectively, beyond the point that regulation can coalesce to address, which is why it is all the more frustrating to hear argumentation revolve around politics first and classism second rather than technology’s impact upon classism first and class mobility’s impact on politics second. Technologists must enable liberty and facilitate autonomy first and foremost, in my view, but instead, maximally captivating users (both wittingly as with gaming and app addiction and unwittingly as with shadow profiling and surveillance capitalism) as means to profit has taken priority, and hearing Alex parrot blame-the-victim, corporate maximalist talking points strikes me as a stunning abdication of the opportunity and indeed responsibility I find should be incumbent upon a technology-focused show on a technically oriented network like TWiT. Having said that, his airing that elite/elitist echelon’s mentality publicly is a vital opportunity to register critique against it, so I thank TWiT the network for airing what I had expected would be cut from the show, having watched the livestream.
The corporatist left hand doesn’t know (or care) what the market right hand is doing: landlords jack rents to whatever the market will bear and Western culture considers that sacrosanct market science, even after it’s reached a point of crisis so dire that even their own employees can barely eke out the means to attend to daily office duties, let alone the infrastructure and support personnel required for the smooth functioning of their operations.
The rhetoric that Apple doesn’t pay their fair share or all that it’s required to is directionally correct in their intentionally withholding funds from tax liability by keeping it out of the country; the counter-argument that it’s technically legal is a rhetorical fig-leaf that IMO says more about those mounting it than it could ever hope to contribute to any ostensible debate over the issue. Alex even had the gall later to gouge critics for discouraging corporate charity, after chiding us that it should be laws that require such funds. We’ve passed the legislation; they’re defying it; we’re supposed to not blame them but instead pass more laws through a captive legislature hostile to our interests? Who do you think created and maintains the loopholes being exploited already? Obviously, the average voter meant to ensure actual corporate accountability would be impossible[/sarcasm].
The one point I agree with Alex on is that the space dedicated to cars is obscene, but his corporate fueled fantasies of terraforming and “blank-slate” design plinths aren’t just unsustainable, but unjust, IMO, in their childish insistence that working with government is beneath them and that democratic impingement upon wealth sullies its potential. While transforming existing cities is much less expedient than just running away, it’s also, IMO, craven and arrogant as can be. Similarly to how I see digital fiefdom in software design, I see the same impulses from actual fiefdoms of history reborn in dreams of privatizing public infrastructure anew—all while casting security and privacy to the winds.
I concede Alex’s point that everything’s much more complex than knee-jerk political virtue signaling would have everyone believe, but I also fault him for failing to embrace that complexity in his flights of fancy as to blue-sky corporatist solutions. I would also caution against such argumentation being used as a gate-keeping cudgel. As to his analogy to the fires in commenting on civic complexity, San Diego’s utility proves everything PG&E neglected, and in fact is deploying quick-kill sensors capable of powering off failed lines before they even hit the ground to ignite fires. These problems are not insurmountable. The whole point of politics, and especially democratic politics, is to marshall the will of the people for the public good regardless of whether or not market and other capital incentives reach the threshhold for private individuals in control of such resources as are responsible for outcomes affecting the populace in profound systemic ways, intentionally or otherwise.
Alex talked out of both sides of his mouth, back-to-back even, in faulting local red tape against a shed behind his house on the one hand then decrying NIMBY-ism on the other—and just after having dismissed rent control as proven a failure for affordable housing! You can’t have it both ways: you can’t say hands-off the market give us the right incentives on the one hand, then trash NIMBY-ism and rent control on the other: the whole point of civic measures, including rent control, is to correct market failures on housing. It goes to show you how entrenched the market mythos is in America that the knee-jerk response to correcting market failures is to make the market happy! It’s that same mentality ensuring civic coffers cannot comprehensively address all of the attendant needs to housing in a coherent way, like cities are supposed to [be able to] do.
As for the retort that they’ll take their toys and go to a new home, that’s what Apple, like virtually every other corporation, is already effectively doing by floating revenue offshore. I also invite Alex and his ilk to consider the consequences of continued stratification only made more brittle and severe by sequestering those the system rewards most at a physiological, infrastructural level.
Also, on battery replacements Andy mentioned, I have to agree against Lori: Apple retail employees’ job, no less than everyone at Apple, is to do right by the customer, which, yes, does include selling new items when that customer is in the market for one, and it serves that individual customer’s best interests, but no more than a battery alone a device makes does a spent one justify a new device; to the extent retailers’ job is customer service, this is only all the truer. Apple’s not hurting for money; don’t confuse Wall Street’s breathing down Apple’s neck for “growth” with existential threat of bankruptcy if sales fall.