5 ms·

You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to r

You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. They are a sovereign country and have the right to establish whatever laws they want within their territory.

avmich 8y ago
> Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. A trivial comparison: would you respect laws of Nazi Germany in 1930s if Internet existed then?
- moreira 8y ago
  I would choose not to do business with Nazi Germany. If I'm running a business and don't agree with their laws, I can choose not to do business there. If I'm choosing to do business there, I'm choosing to respect their laws. It's that simple - it's just like an individual immigrating to a country. Doing business there, and breaking their laws, isn't right no matter what you think of them.
  - avmich 8y ago
    > Doing business there Out of curiosity, how'd you define "doing business there" in a borderless Internet? Surely Google servers remain in the USA? Would you rely on imperfect client location determination?
    - moreira 8y ago
      The article is about Google pulling down Russian ads, paid for by Russians. It is clear that Google is doing business with people in Russia. This isn't about visitors to a website, which I agree is an entirely different situation.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  Your comparison only works because we now know that the Nazis committed horrific deeds. We didn't know about the holocaust until the early 1940s. Until then, they were just another government to do business with.
394549 8y ago
> You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. No, you don't. Websites are international, and Google could always refuse to comply. They run the risk of being blocked, but that might be preferable to complying with an immoral or unjust law. > They are a sovereign country and have the right to establish whatever laws they want within their territory. No. Do you think "sovereign countries" have a right to establish laws implementing the genocide of a minority population? To use torture freely? To murder or imprison people for criticizing the government? To absolutely defer to sovereignty is to either stand by while injustices large and small are inflicted on others, or even worse join in and be complicit in the injustice.
Spartan-S63 8y ago
I'm actually not advocating breaking a country's laws or their sovereignty. What I was trying to argue (and I probably didn't do a good job) is that trusting a for-profit company to serve the general welfare and public good is a fool's errand. This is further proof that companies like Google only care about furthering conversations insofar as to make money.
- moreira 8y ago
  I completely agree with you there, and I'm sorry if my comment came across as aggressive. What I'm surprised by though, is that anyone thinks corporations are anything but a way to make money. Does anyone really believe they care about serving the general welfare? It's money first, "don't be evil" second, for all for-profit corporations. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what a corporation is for.
  - Spartan-S63 8y ago
    It appears to me that a lot of people have shifted their trust to private corporations from government entities. Namely because we've stopped holding our elected officials accountable. There should be and always will be a struggle between for-profit ventures and the general welfare but if we don't have trust in democratic institutions, we'll continue ceding power to for-profit ventures.

avmich 8y ago

> Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. A trivial comparison: would you respect laws of Nazi Germany in 1930s if Internet existed then?

moreira 8y ago
I would choose not to do business with Nazi Germany. If I'm running a business and don't agree with their laws, I can choose not to do business there. If I'm choosing to do business there, I'm choosing to respect their laws. It's that simple - it's just like an individual immigrating to a country. Doing business there, and breaking their laws, isn't right no matter what you think of them.
- avmich 8y ago
  > Doing business there Out of curiosity, how'd you define "doing business there" in a borderless Internet? Surely Google servers remain in the USA? Would you rely on imperfect client location determination?
  - moreira 8y ago
    The article is about Google pulling down Russian ads, paid for by Russians. It is clear that Google is doing business with people in Russia. This isn't about visitors to a website, which I agree is an entirely different situation.
jbob2000 8y ago
Your comparison only works because we now know that the Nazis committed horrific deeds. We didn't know about the holocaust until the early 1940s. Until then, they were just another government to do business with.

394549 8y ago

> You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. No, you don't. Websites are international, and Google could always refuse to comply. They run the risk of being blocked, but that might be preferable to complying with an immoral or unjust law. > They are a sovereign country and have the right to establish whatever laws they want within their territory. No. Do you think "sovereign countries" have a right to establish laws implementing the genocide of a minority population? To use torture freely? To murder or imprison people for criticizing the government? To absolutely defer to sovereignty is to either stand by while injustices large and small are inflicted on others, or even worse join in and be complicit in the injustice.

Spartan-S63 8y ago

I'm actually not advocating breaking a country's laws or their sovereignty. What I was trying to argue (and I probably didn't do a good job) is that trusting a for-profit company to serve the general welfare and public good is a fool's errand. This is further proof that companies like Google only care about furthering conversations insofar as to make money.

moreira 8y ago
I completely agree with you there, and I'm sorry if my comment came across as aggressive. What I'm surprised by though, is that anyone thinks corporations are anything but a way to make money. Does anyone really believe they care about serving the general welfare? It's money first, "don't be evil" second, for all for-profit corporations. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what a corporation is for.
- Spartan-S63 8y ago
  It appears to me that a lot of people have shifted their trust to private corporations from government entities. Namely because we've stopped holding our elected officials accountable. There should be and always will be a struggle between for-profit ventures and the general welfare but if we don't have trust in democratic institutions, we'll continue ceding power to for-profit ventures.