8 ms·

A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Do you want

by tensor 8y ago

A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

bogomipz 8y ago
>"Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?" No but it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. Or are values just things you can draw arbitrary borders around when it's convenient?
- beaner 8y ago
  Not many disagree with that. The question is whether it should be enforced by politics or if people/companies can be allowed to make the decisions themselves.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    It depends upon what the decisions made are. At a certain point it will reach the level that voters will want it to be controlled by politics, and likely the control will be tighter than if they hadn't crossed whatever line motivated voters to push for control. The US already enforced some laws on its citizens as they travel regardless if the behavior is legal overseas. These tend to be done to actions that are deemed the worst of the worst. Minor crimes are not enforced globally. At what point is supporting and working with China going to cross that line, given many of their current actions against unpopular groups?
- TheCraiggers 8y ago
  What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules? I'm only being mildly pedantic here. Obviously, there are some silly laws that don't work here; I'm talking about the large obvious ones that everyone knows about.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    >"What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules?" Do you really believe that's true when a country has had only a single political party since 1949?
- ska 8y ago
  it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. One could say the same of the government :)
  - bogomipz 8y ago
    Heh, yes agreed.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  Would you like Chinese companies operating in the US to do the same?
awakeasleep 8y ago
You're looking at the question from a really nihilistic-libertarian perspective. IBM was following the law when it sold the nazis tools for tracking 'undesirable' people. Google's search engine will be used to track the Uyghur, and the Uyghurs are being sent to reeducation camps at this very moment. We're talking about an apples to apples comparison here. It's controversial _as hell_ to sell tools used to do genocide! In a democracy the government should be able to restrain businesses that perform abhorrent practices.
- beaner 8y ago
  If that's true, it says to me that governments should put a blanket block on doing certain types of business with that specific country. Such a block should apply to all companies equally. It doesn't require them to be more involved in decisions from within the companies.
  - toss1 8y ago
    Absolutely, it should be written to block all companies equally. But in must be written
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - akiselev 8y ago
    Why though? We draw lines about what is legally acceptable or not all the time, often with little more guidance than subjective morality filtered through elected representation. There is a vast difference between Hugo Boss making Nazi uniforms and IBM selling them high tech machines designed to increase the efficiency of their extermination.
    - beaner 8y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that there is a difference. So there should be a law blocking the 2nd type of activity. The lack of a law is implicit moral approval of the American people.
andrepd 8y ago
Ah right, "following the laws", because discussions of morality can be reduced to whether it "follows the law" or not? No, that's absurd. Google is objectively abetting an authoritarian regime and providing it with extremely useful tools to maintain and strengthen totalitarian control over 1.4 billion people, and this is wrong.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Objectively, Google is extending its services to a billion people while maintaining the status quo of censorship. Stopping Google from expanding to China is basically another form of censorship, which is wrong.
  - 2bitmachine 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
  - kodablah 8y ago
    These are also common arguments against country-level sanctions as well. People have differing opinions on the subject, but that something helps both the people and the regime doesn't always mean taking the good with the bad is worth it. I agree that both Google cooperating w/ China is wrong and that government interference to prevent it is wrong.
  - jonathankoren 8y ago
    It’s not obviously wrong, nor is it objectively the same product since the censorship and surveillance makes it very different. It makes it a tool of control. Governments routinely regulate exports as matter of policy. Lockheed would very much like to sell Taiwan (or really anyone and everyone) F-35s, but as a matter of government policy, it’s not allowed to, as it runs counter to the policies of the American government. This maybe censorship in a broad sense, but it certainly doesn’t make it prima facie wrong.
  - cryoshon 8y ago
    taking initiative to participate in maintaining a malicious status quo is being malicious. google isn't being coerced here, they're volunteering to help with oppression. put differently: what do you call an accountant who sings up to perpetuate the status quo of a criminal enterprise by updating their books? guilty. but they were "just extending the services of accounting to a new organization while maintaining the status quo of criminality".
eli_gottlieb 8y ago
>Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? I'd rather have companies be extensions of US policy, than make US policy themselves.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Depends on what those laws are. Imagine if Google was deliberately helping out with some genocide to make a dollar? And given some stories coming from China, that isn't exactly a what-if situation. >Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? They have to be extensions of US morals to the extent voters don't push for them to be punished for not being so. That's a byproduct of using democracy.
- 2bitmachine 8y ago
  >Imagine if Google was deliberately helping out with some genocide to make a dollar? Funny that you mention that, since their surveillance and censorship will undoubtedly be targeted at Uighurs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ethnic-cleansing-makes-a-comeback--in-china/2018/08/02/55f73fa2-9691-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ethn...
unethical_ban 8y ago
It is one thing to apply broad sanctions and tariffs on a company, forcing them to be an extension of national policy. It is another to expect (and perhaps enforce) that a product/company whose service is the exploration of knowledge stays consistent with a fundamental principle of Western human rights, which is the freedom of thought and speech. There is a line somewhere. Where it is, is debatable.
stale2002 8y ago
Lots of governments do terrible things, and people condemn those governments all the time for it. And people have been condemning companies for working for those governments as well. If you want to look at some history, I will unfortunately have to invoke godwins law, by using the example of IBM, which everyone condemns now for working with the Nazis. So to answer your question, I am happy to have companies be an extension of US foriegn policy, in cases where the US foreign policy is correct, and the other country is wrong.
- 394549 8y ago
  > If you want to look at some history, I will unfortunately have to invoke godwins law, by using the example of IBM, which everyone condemns now for working with the Nazis. Godwin's law has been repealed: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins-law-suspended-by-godwin https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins...
jedbrown 8y ago
Solid defense of Watson Business Machines you're making there.
toss1 8y ago
Actually, YES, to the extent that the foreign policy is supporting & maintaining institutions & policies necessary for continued open democratic societies. By virtue of the US' historically strong support for open democracies (albeit often flawed or failed), and historical accident, it essentially now falls to the US to attempt to maintain it around the world. To the extent that we have failed to maintain and support democratic institutions and traditions around the world, they are lost. To the extent that these free, open, democratic governments, institutions, and traditions are lost around the world, those remaining in free societies will find ourselves under threat of losing those societies. So, yes, if a company wants to enjoy the fruits of being able to grow and prosper in the greatest open society and largest economy on the planet at this time, it is not too much to ask it to avoid supporting adversaries who would undermine our society and economy at the first opportunity (and are actively doing so right now). [recommend reading Garry Kasparov's "Winter is Coming" & other titles -- Fmr World Chess Champion, Russian Presidential candidate, author -- he's been there, done that, and buried his friends doing so]
- coffeeonrollt 8y ago
  With the amount of Chinese products being used in US and US support of countries who have violated human rights, your statement sounds hypocritical. US has interests and behaves to protect it, there is no morality in those decisions.
  - toss1 8y ago
    It would be if I supported it, but I am extremely against it (& yes, I did ack that US has been inconsistent/failed and was referring to supporting some anti-rights regimes). The extensive use of Chinese products by the US will likely turn out to be a great geostrategic blunder of historic magnitude. While the US companies and govt thinks they're exploiting cheap Chinese labor, China is strategically exploiting our myopic weakness for short-term profits to steal IP and gain global economic & military power.
- mulmen 8y ago
  I'm all for the US government supporting open democracy through foreign policy. The US electorate influences this policy. I don't want Google making decisions based on anything other than how to make money legally.
stcredzero 8y ago
Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? Do you want your search engine company to be an extension of Chinese policy?
xapata 8y ago
The USA has historically treated its corporations as extensions of its foreign policy [0]. [0] United Fruit.
rndgermandude 8y ago
So if Google wanted to be in big in Saudi-Arabia, and would have to comply with a law that mandates it must enable the Saudi law enforcement to look through their data for instances of "homosexuality and related activity" so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted and tortured and/or put to death, that's OK too, right? Because Google would be complying with the laws of the country, after all. Make no mistake, with all the stuff going on in China (political imprisonment, "Social Credits"), it is almost certain that if Google was to share data with the Chinese government it will lead to human rights abuses, ruined lives, imprisonment and maybe even death penalties, not because somebody is a hardened criminal, but merely because they (unknowingly) googled the wrong things.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws." See, that's where you and I differ; you're just referring to them as "that country's laws", and not considering what those laws actually are. I, on the other hand, prefer to take into account the context of the situation, which includes considering what those laws are.
394549 8y ago
> A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Stopping your analysis at legality/illegality is morally bankrupt. Local laws can be explicit tools of oppression and malice, and I would say its very controversial for western companies to follow such laws in authoritarian countries like China. For an utterly obvious example of why this is true: look at Nazi Germany. Everything it did was in compliance with its local laws, but now many of its actions are universally considered crimes against humanity. Foreign companies and individuals that collaborated with it on those crimes are not excused by those laws. > Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? I want them to be extensions of some basic liberal values, not agents of profit uber alles. For instance, I applaud European pharmaceutical companies for refusing to sell the anesthetics used for lethal injection to the US states that use them for executions.
eecc 8y ago
Careful, you’re dangerously close to a legitimate Godwin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
colordrops 8y ago
What if the law was that you had to execute employees found to be subverting the state? There has to be a limit right? It's not just about complying with the law.
HappyDreamer 8y ago
I this case it's controversial, unless one is pro dictatorship, or maybe just clueless. Because the laws are controversial: They entail people get sent to prison, for speaking up against sexism or toxic air, or because they want some privacy, or because they criticize the government (well, dictatorship). That is controversial. Unless one is fine with, or is clueless about, toxic air, sexual harassment, others going to prison because they disagree with the government (dictators).

by tensor 8y ago

bogomipz 8y ago

>"Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?" No but it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. Or are values just things you can draw arbitrary borders around when it's convenient?

beaner 8y ago
Not many disagree with that. The question is whether it should be enforced by politics or if people/companies can be allowed to make the decisions themselves.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  It depends upon what the decisions made are. At a certain point it will reach the level that voters will want it to be controlled by politics, and likely the control will be tighter than if they hadn't crossed whatever line motivated voters to push for control. The US already enforced some laws on its citizens as they travel regardless if the behavior is legal overseas. These tend to be done to actions that are deemed the worst of the worst. Minor crimes are not enforced globally. At what point is supporting and working with China going to cross that line, given many of their current actions against unpopular groups?
TheCraiggers 8y ago
What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules? I'm only being mildly pedantic here. Obviously, there are some silly laws that don't work here; I'm talking about the large obvious ones that everyone knows about.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"What are laws besides a culture's values written down in the form of rules?" Do you really believe that's true when a country has had only a single political party since 1949?
ska 8y ago
it would be nice if they at least upheld the same values of the country that they themselves are a product of. One could say the same of the government :)
- bogomipz 8y ago
  Heh, yes agreed.
travisoneill1 8y ago
Would you like Chinese companies operating in the US to do the same?

awakeasleep 8y ago

You're looking at the question from a really nihilistic-libertarian perspective. IBM was following the law when it sold the nazis tools for tracking 'undesirable' people. Google's search engine will be used to track the Uyghur, and the Uyghurs are being sent to reeducation camps at this very moment. We're talking about an apples to apples comparison here. It's controversial _as hell_ to sell tools used to do genocide! In a democracy the government should be able to restrain businesses that perform abhorrent practices.

beaner 8y ago
If that's true, it says to me that governments should put a blanket block on doing certain types of business with that specific country. Such a block should apply to all companies equally. It doesn't require them to be more involved in decisions from within the companies.
- toss1 8y ago
  Absolutely, it should be written to block all companies equally. But in must be written
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- akiselev 8y ago
  Why though? We draw lines about what is legally acceptable or not all the time, often with little more guidance than subjective morality filtered through elected representation. There is a vast difference between Hugo Boss making Nazi uniforms and IBM selling them high tech machines designed to increase the efficiency of their extermination.
  - beaner 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that there is a difference. So there should be a law blocking the 2nd type of activity. The lack of a law is implicit moral approval of the American people.

andrepd 8y ago

Ah right, "following the laws", because discussions of morality can be reduced to whether it "follows the law" or not? No, that's absurd. Google is objectively abetting an authoritarian regime and providing it with extremely useful tools to maintain and strengthen totalitarian control over 1.4 billion people, and this is wrong.

Aunche 8y ago
Objectively, Google is extending its services to a billion people while maintaining the status quo of censorship. Stopping Google from expanding to China is basically another form of censorship, which is wrong.
- 2bitmachine 8y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
- kodablah 8y ago
  These are also common arguments against country-level sanctions as well. People have differing opinions on the subject, but that something helps both the people and the regime doesn't always mean taking the good with the bad is worth it. I agree that both Google cooperating w/ China is wrong and that government interference to prevent it is wrong.
- jonathankoren 8y ago
  It’s not obviously wrong, nor is it objectively the same product since the censorship and surveillance makes it very different. It makes it a tool of control. Governments routinely regulate exports as matter of policy. Lockheed would very much like to sell Taiwan (or really anyone and everyone) F-35s, but as a matter of government policy, it’s not allowed to, as it runs counter to the policies of the American government. This maybe censorship in a broad sense, but it certainly doesn’t make it prima facie wrong.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  taking initiative to participate in maintaining a malicious status quo is being malicious. google isn't being coerced here, they're volunteering to help with oppression. put differently: what do you call an accountant who sings up to perpetuate the status quo of a criminal enterprise by updating their books? guilty. but they were "just extending the services of accounting to a new organization while maintaining the status quo of criminality".

eli_gottlieb 8y ago

>Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? I'd rather have companies be extensions of US policy, than make US policy themselves.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Depends on what those laws are. Imagine if Google was deliberately helping out with some genocide to make a dollar? And given some stories coming from China, that isn't exactly a what-if situation. >Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? They have to be extensions of US morals to the extent voters don't push for them to be punished for not being so. That's a byproduct of using democracy.

2bitmachine 8y ago
>Imagine if Google was deliberately helping out with some genocide to make a dollar? Funny that you mention that, since their surveillance and censorship will undoubtedly be targeted at Uighurs: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ethnic-cleansing-makes-a-comeback--in-china/2018/08/02/55f73fa2-9691-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?noredirect=on https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ethn...

unethical_ban 8y ago

It is one thing to apply broad sanctions and tariffs on a company, forcing them to be an extension of national policy. It is another to expect (and perhaps enforce) that a product/company whose service is the exploration of knowledge stays consistent with a fundamental principle of Western human rights, which is the freedom of thought and speech. There is a line somewhere. Where it is, is debatable.

stale2002 8y ago

Lots of governments do terrible things, and people condemn those governments all the time for it. And people have been condemning companies for working for those governments as well. If you want to look at some history, I will unfortunately have to invoke godwins law, by using the example of IBM, which everyone condemns now for working with the Nazis. So to answer your question, I am happy to have companies be an extension of US foriegn policy, in cases where the US foreign policy is correct, and the other country is wrong.

394549 8y ago
> If you want to look at some history, I will unfortunately have to invoke godwins law, by using the example of IBM, which everyone condemns now for working with the Nazis. Godwin's law has been repealed: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins-law-suspended-by-godwin https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/06/19/27874178/godwins...

jedbrown 8y ago

Solid defense of Watson Business Machines you're making there.

toss1 8y ago

Actually, YES, to the extent that the foreign policy is supporting & maintaining institutions & policies necessary for continued open democratic societies. By virtue of the US' historically strong support for open democracies (albeit often flawed or failed), and historical accident, it essentially now falls to the US to attempt to maintain it around the world. To the extent that we have failed to maintain and support democratic institutions and traditions around the world, they are lost. To the extent that these free, open, democratic governments, institutions, and traditions are lost around the world, those remaining in free societies will find ourselves under threat of losing those societies. So, yes, if a company wants to enjoy the fruits of being able to grow and prosper in the greatest open society and largest economy on the planet at this time, it is not too much to ask it to avoid supporting adversaries who would undermine our society and economy at the first opportunity (and are actively doing so right now). [recommend reading Garry Kasparov's "Winter is Coming" & other titles -- Fmr World Chess Champion, Russian Presidential candidate, author -- he's been there, done that, and buried his friends doing so]

coffeeonrollt 8y ago
With the amount of Chinese products being used in US and US support of countries who have violated human rights, your statement sounds hypocritical. US has interests and behaves to protect it, there is no morality in those decisions.
- toss1 8y ago
  It would be if I supported it, but I am extremely against it (& yes, I did ack that US has been inconsistent/failed and was referring to supporting some anti-rights regimes). The extensive use of Chinese products by the US will likely turn out to be a great geostrategic blunder of historic magnitude. While the US companies and govt thinks they're exploiting cheap Chinese labor, China is strategically exploiting our myopic weakness for short-term profits to steal IP and gain global economic & military power.
mulmen 8y ago
I'm all for the US government supporting open democracy through foreign policy. The US electorate influences this policy. I don't want Google making decisions based on anything other than how to make money legally.

stcredzero 8y ago

Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? Do you want your search engine company to be an extension of Chinese policy?

xapata 8y ago

The USA has historically treated its corporations as extensions of its foreign policy [0]. [0] United Fruit.

rndgermandude 8y ago

So if Google wanted to be in big in Saudi-Arabia, and would have to comply with a law that mandates it must enable the Saudi law enforcement to look through their data for instances of "homosexuality and related activity" so that the perpetrators can be prosecuted and tortured and/or put to death, that's OK too, right? Because Google would be complying with the laws of the country, after all. Make no mistake, with all the stuff going on in China (political imprisonment, "Social Credits"), it is almost certain that if Google was to share data with the Chinese government it will lead to human rights abuses, ruined lives, imprisonment and maybe even death penalties, not because somebody is a hardened criminal, but merely because they (unknowingly) googled the wrong things.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws." See, that's where you and I differ; you're just referring to them as "that country's laws", and not considering what those laws actually are. I, on the other hand, prefer to take into account the context of the situation, which includes considering what those laws are.

394549 8y ago

> A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws. Stopping your analysis at legality/illegality is morally bankrupt. Local laws can be explicit tools of oppression and malice, and I would say its very controversial for western companies to follow such laws in authoritarian countries like China. For an utterly obvious example of why this is true: look at Nazi Germany. Everything it did was in compliance with its local laws, but now many of its actions are universally considered crimes against humanity. Foreign companies and individuals that collaborated with it on those crimes are not excused by those laws. > Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy? I want them to be extensions of some basic liberal values, not agents of profit uber alles. For instance, I applaud European pharmaceutical companies for refusing to sell the anesthetics used for lethal injection to the US states that use them for executions.

eecc 8y ago

Careful, you’re dangerously close to a legitimate Godwin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

colordrops 8y ago

What if the law was that you had to execute employees found to be subverting the state? There has to be a limit right? It's not just about complying with the law.

HappyDreamer 8y ago

I this case it's controversial, unless one is pro dictatorship, or maybe just clueless. Because the laws are controversial: They entail people get sent to prison, for speaking up against sexism or toxic air, or because they want some privacy, or because they criticize the government (well, dictatorship). That is controversial. Unless one is fine with, or is clueless about, toxic air, sexual harassment, others going to prison because they disagree with the government (dictators).