> Well, conquering markets also imposes one group's values (e.g. FB censorship based on what Americans deem offensive) and national interests (e.g. surveillance

> Well, conquering markets also imposes one group's values (e.g. FB censorship based on what Americans deem offensive) and national interests (e.g. surveillance) on others. That's a great pro-free-speech and privacy argument. Certainly interacting within the framework of a company with different values will mean you have to abide by those values. But the thing is - you aren't forced to. The various peoples of colonies usually didn't have a choice to go back to living how they did before their foreign occupiers landed. > Well, globalization is a form of imperialism. It's not equal access to the global markets and influence for all countries: it's a few countries dominating. As far as I'm aware, the living standard of all nations is going up. Nigerians have access to a safer banking system because they can use modern phones. China is dominating the world's manufacturing. Sure, the US and Europe have an outsized impact on the market - do you think that is more the case now than in the 1800s? I'd much rather people in developing nations have access to the international markets, because trade is mutually beneficial. Big companies make money, their customers also gain something. That's not imperialist in any sense, that's just free exchange of goods and services. Or perhaps we should all stick to trading within our own borders? Because that sounds like protectionist nationalism, which certainly isn't going to give people living in poorer nations access to goods and services they may benefit from.