by RyEgswuCsn on 6/30/22, 12:10 PM
Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there?
If yes, then Amazon is not "bowing", and it is The Guardian who is playing word games here. If not, then it would seem to imply that we are OK with western powers using their capital (instead of gunboats) to impose their ideology on other cultures in the world.
Now, one may argue that the customs and values of some countries are incompatible with those of the West and may even be considered "backward" to the point that western companies should completely withdraw from those markets because providing services to such markets equates to empowering those backward social values. That can be a fair assessment, but just remember not to blame them for "banning western companies" in the future.
by frereubu on 6/30/22, 12:48 PM
I'd be (genuinely) interested in an answer to the questions: (a) would people here, as individuals, feel comfortable working for a company owned by someone like Mohammed bin Salman? and (b) If not, what is the difference between that and a company changing its working practices to continue making profits in that country?
My sense is that the corporate decisions are easier because they're depersonalised, but I don't see much of a moral distinction between the two.
Clearly there's a difference in the directness of interaction when it's a person or a company. But speaking personally I would never compromise my core ethical beliefs (which include not working in an environment where gay people are executed because of who they love and secret service agents are sent to kill critical journalists overseas) just so my company could make more money.
This isn't to say that I don't think politicians shouldn't talk to those regimes, but that feels quite different.
by PradeetPatel on 6/30/22, 10:49 AM
Speaking as someone who worked in the reputation management sector, this kind of behaviour has been around since the early 20th century.
I think people often mistaken "region based marketing" for genuine political statements. If promoting pride yields a net positive increase in reputation and revenue in Western countries, one would be foolish not to jump on that bandwagon.
by erellsworth on 6/30/22, 12:03 PM
There's no such thing as a woke corporation. Corporate wokeness is an illusion created by PR departments to maximize market share.
by c0l0 on 6/30/22, 9:44 AM
"Pride month's over anyway, folks - let's pack it in!"
by klez on 6/30/22, 9:50 AM
I'm a bit confused by the fact that they're talking about UAE and then they suddenly switch to talking about non-Amazon related events in Saudi Arabia.
by GekkePrutser on 6/30/22, 12:37 PM
I just cannot understand why so many people get so angry about what other consenting adults get up to in a closed bedroom. Live and let live.
by MrBuddyCasino on 6/30/22, 10:44 AM
As does every other corporation that puts up a rainbow lag the second its pride month. Blackrock, McDonnel Douglas and Exxon are really trying to be on the right side of history here, folks! Ask Disney if they show the same movies in China.
Its all just kowtowing to the power of the Global American Empire legislated by misguided civil rights legislation, enforced by the politcommissars in HR. Every culture has a right to protect its values.
by Thorentis on 6/30/22, 12:44 PM
Companies will do whatever they can to increase profits in the market they find themselves in? The choice to paint a logo rainbow, or not paint a logo rainbow, is purely a monetary decision and doesn't actually reflect whether the company cares about social justice or not? Companies exist to make money? What a hot take.
by system16 on 6/30/22, 2:40 PM
So many companies are hypocritical about this and I don't know why they don't get called out on it more. My social feeds are flooded with rainbow avatars from accounts like @MercedesBenz and their unwavering support for the LGBTQ community, but a quick look at @MercedesBenzME shows no rainbows in sight.
by FerociousTimes on 6/30/22, 3:40 PM
> Earlier this month, authorities in Saudi Arabia seized rainbow-coloured toys and children’s clothing, which they claimed encourage homosexuality, according to state TV Al Ekhbariya. It said commerce ministry officials removed a range of items from shops in the capital, Riyadh, including hats, skirts, T-shirts, hair clips and pencil cases.
I swear it's always a moral panic/mass hysteria with these people when it comes to discussing controversial social issues.
They also seem to be very fixated and invested in the talking point that with the proper and right formula of marketing, you can convert straight people to gay people, or make them engage in homosexual activities which is quite absurd and ridiculous if you ask me but here we go again.
by varjag on 6/30/22, 1:06 PM
It is endearing how the big tech makes grandstanding against FBI warrants but repeatedly caves in to every petty dictator demands if PR fallout is deemed irrelevant.
by pharmakom on 6/30/22, 1:04 PM
I’m fine with corps not taking a stand and just following local regs IFF they don’t pretend to care about this stuff in recruitment and marketing messaging.
by andsoitis on 6/30/22, 1:25 PM
If this was a story about blood diamonds and not gay lives, I think the tone / shape of the discussion thread would be different.
by sweetheart on 6/30/22, 10:17 AM
Is there any argument here in Amazon’s defense? Or is my initial disgust at Amazon truly the appropriate response.
I cannot fathom being the person at Amazon who makes that call. Do they sleep well at night? Do they feel good about themselves?
by Tarucho on 6/30/22, 2:40 PM
Companies are just a table where some people put money on it with the idea of taking more from it later. The rest are strategies to make that money grow.
by trasz on 6/30/22, 10:37 AM
Soon in southern US.
by matt321 on 6/30/22, 1:21 PM
The rainbow logo has always been about money.
by turing_complete on 6/30/22, 12:48 PM
In the west, Amazon restricts search results or drops books critical of gender theory. In other countries, it's the other way round. I would even prefer them having a consitently bad position to being just spineless and opportunistic.