>Why shouldn't apple? For some reason apple gets a pass on HN

Or, you know, Apple gets the same or more kind of criticism, but since you are biased to agree with it, you are blind to it, and only see the praise/defenses.

>for things like fighting to keep forced labor camps open

That's probably because the framing of this by the media is BS, playing into the trade war objectives and narrative of the US foreign policy.

It's just that these companies have a lot of suppliers in those areas, unrelated with any "labor camps", whereas the US/law has put a wide canvas that includes a huge area and all kinds of inoffensive suppliers. Seeing that the companies can't just cut off their supply chain on the drop of a hat, they ask for extention period, better monitoring on which and if any of their particular suppliers might actually involve such labor, etc.

But that doesn't make for good headlines for the masses, or for good propaganda.

This law is untenable. For one thing outside of companies like Apple or Amazon who -might- be able to negotiate with the Chinese government on audits, middle to small businesses would have no possibility of that because they mean nothing to the CCP. This is a government to government thing, not a company thing and the bill doesn't make sense to make companies culpable for the entire supply chain. It's just punting responsibilities to companies who trade rather the US government whose job it is really to investigate such things. It's just a feel good law to blame corps rather than Congress Critters, which they've been trying to get rid of responsibilities for decades.

Or, you know, maybe the world isn’t black and white, and you could read the whole linked article to see why Apple might want to reasonably oppose certain provisions of the bill, instead of simply being “evil”, whatever that means:

> However, there is one potential explanation.

> In July, campaign groups called on Apple to err on the side of caution by ceasing using production facilities based in the Uyghur Region of China. The bill as it is currently written might make that the only way that US companies could ensure compliance.

> > One provision in the bill requires public companies to certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission that their products are not made using forced labor from Xinjiang. If companies are found to have used forced labor from the region, they could be prosecuted for securities violations.

> If Apple cannot easily avoid using downstream suppliers based in the region, it may be that it is trying to dilute the provision to something more along the lines of a requirement to conduct audits, investigate claims, and to take all reasonable steps to prevent the use of forced labor.

With Apple you get what you've paid for. With Google you pay for what you've got for "free".

Seriously, why not? And why was wnevets getting downvoted?

The linked article references a source I’m sure most on HN would agree is reputable, to the extent it confirms their biases.

> A report in [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u...) claims that Apple is trying to weaken provisions in the bill.

> > Apple lobbyists are trying to weaken a bill aimed at preventing forced labor in China, according to two congressional staffers familiar with the matter, highlighting the clash between its business imperatives and its official stance on human rights.