6 ms·
> The US prohibits American companies from selling > weapons... Yes, but this is actually instructive. Google is not a Canadian company, so the more accura
by avar 9y ago
> The US prohibits American companies from selling
> weapons...
Yes, but this is actually instructive. Google is not a Canadian company, so the more accurate comparison would be the US trying to control who the Russian Kalashnikov Concern sells AK-47's to, just because they're also for sale in the US.
> The nature of them being an international
> corporation should not mean they are immune
> to everyone's laws.
Nobody's advocating that the likes of Google should be immune to everyone's laws, but rather that it's overstepping that any given country is going beyond just instructing an international corporation on how to behave within their borders.
> International corporations should be required
> to follow all of them.
So if Saudia Arabia decides that showing any images of women more revealing than the niqab in Google Images that should be applied globally? This is just a recipe for a race to the bottom.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThere's realistically no limit to what a country can require if an international company wants to do business within their borders. Surely, Saudi Arabia could make that requirement, and then Google would need to decide whether or not it wanted to comply, or stop doing business in Saudi Arabia. Presumably, in your example they would likely pull out of Saudi Arabia, given the scope of the impact on everyone else versus their income from Saudi Arabia. In this case, Canada has ordered one search result, so Google obviously is going to comply rather than losing the Canadian market (and it's three offices there). Countries have no inherent requirement to make it easy for international businesses to operate, and I don't feel they should. They should be looking out for their citizens first and foremost, and that's exactly what Canada did here.