3 ms·

'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me

'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).

loceng 8y ago
Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?
puzzle 8y ago
I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent). We can change the law formally, but rely on people following and enforcing that law in the absence of the formal change. It's not for companies or individuals to decide, unilaterally, what laws they will enforce or follow, in any society.

loceng 8y ago

Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?

puzzle 8y ago

I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent). We can change the law formally, but rely on people following and enforcing that law in the absence of the formal change. It's not for companies or individuals to decide, unilaterally, what laws they will enforce or follow, in any society.