4 ms·

Would you still work for Amazon? Microsoft? Apple? Facebook? Because they are actually in China and give concessions to the government.

yholio 8y ago
The idea that a foreign corporation has a duty to break Chinese law with regards to web filtering is very problematic, if that's what you mean by "give concessions to the government". How far should such a corporation go with breaking the law, is tax evasion against the Chinese state morally acceptable, since those taxes might be used for oppression? We should recognize here a very thin line between respecting the Chinese law and actively collaborating to subvert human rights - because the law is defined by an authoritarian regime with a long history of human right abuses. That being said, surely you cannot change Chinese law from outside China, and if respecting it's current iteration is not in itself an unacceptable violation of human rights, it stands to reason that expanding in China at least forces the government to stick to it's own laws under the threat of a public exit and protest if unlawful pressures are made. It puts ethical companies in a position where they can nudge the Chinese towards ethical behavior - or at least very publicly denounce unethical demands.
- maccam94 8y ago
  Are there any legal restrictions on what the Chinese government can ask websites to censor? I am not aware of any, so I don't see where there would be an opportunity to protest.
  - yholio 8y ago
    I believe it's already established that operating in China means responding to all censorship requests. Nonetheless, there are still many things an ethical company could refuse: access to the private searches and information of an individual without a due legal process, collecting sensitive information altogether knowing that it's fair game for the state, knowingly alter or influence results to promote official narratives and propaganda, knowingly use or profit from the proceeds of labor camps, underage or other forms of work exploitation; and many, many more, which are surely not positively codified in any Chinese law, yet are widespread.
- khuey 8y ago
  You can't change Chinese law from inside China either. The only winning move is not to play.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
diminoten 8y ago
I don't think it's fair to try and nitpick people's ethical decisions like this. Imagine yes, this person would work for Amazon even though they're in China too. Does that make them not working for Google because they're in China a bad choice? I don't think so. Are we really prepared to tear everyone down who isn't absolute in their morality?
- bduerst 8y ago
  A moral inconsistency is not a nitpick when it's the entire industry. Their logic makes Google a better employer than Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and any other tech company currently operating in China. Saying they spurned Google because the company was considering going to China is disengenious, since the majority of the substitute employers are already in China.
  - diminoten 8y ago
    You're saying his moral position is invalid because he doesn't apply it consistently, and that is not true, and also possibly harmful.
    - bduerst 8y ago
      I said the moral position is disingenuous because it is both inconsistent and opposite to what he is describing, when considering all things related.
      - diminoten 8y ago
        But each "related" decision is different, and there is no accurate generalization, by the very nature of what a generalization is.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Saying they spurned Google...the majority of the substitute employers are already in China. There is life outside of the FAANG/GAFAM bubble. If you refuse to work at Google, it doesn't mean that you're then obligated to work at Amazon or Microsoft, etc.
int_19h 8y ago
There's a big difference between operating a business in China in general, and operating a business that necessarily involves implementing their surveillance infrastructure.
- Buge 8y ago
  And Bing doesn't, while Dragonfly does?
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I honestly have no idea. Last I heard, Bing is blocked in China, which I assume means that there are things that come in its search result that Chinese government doesn't like. But Dragonfly [ostensibly] went well beyond just censoring results, in that it implemented specific tools like linking search requests with phone numbers identifying people who made those requests. That's straight-up aiding and abetting oppressing people - political opposition, for example, or even unorganized dissenters. I can't believe we are even seriously talking about whether this is okay or not.
    - NamTaf 8y ago
      bing.com redirects to a Chinese version of Bing, which prioritises Chinese sites. I have no basis for saying this beyond not knowing how they could do this otherwise, but I would assume that they must censor results to exist there. I don't know if they go further, such as you describe Dragonfly plans to do.

yholio 8y ago

The idea that a foreign corporation has a duty to break Chinese law with regards to web filtering is very problematic, if that's what you mean by "give concessions to the government". How far should such a corporation go with breaking the law, is tax evasion against the Chinese state morally acceptable, since those taxes might be used for oppression? We should recognize here a very thin line between respecting the Chinese law and actively collaborating to subvert human rights - because the law is defined by an authoritarian regime with a long history of human right abuses. That being said, surely you cannot change Chinese law from outside China, and if respecting it's current iteration is not in itself an unacceptable violation of human rights, it stands to reason that expanding in China at least forces the government to stick to it's own laws under the threat of a public exit and protest if unlawful pressures are made. It puts ethical companies in a position where they can nudge the Chinese towards ethical behavior - or at least very publicly denounce unethical demands.

maccam94 8y ago
Are there any legal restrictions on what the Chinese government can ask websites to censor? I am not aware of any, so I don't see where there would be an opportunity to protest.
- yholio 8y ago
  I believe it's already established that operating in China means responding to all censorship requests. Nonetheless, there are still many things an ethical company could refuse: access to the private searches and information of an individual without a due legal process, collecting sensitive information altogether knowing that it's fair game for the state, knowingly alter or influence results to promote official narratives and propaganda, knowingly use or profit from the proceeds of labor camps, underage or other forms of work exploitation; and many, many more, which are surely not positively codified in any Chinese law, yet are widespread.
khuey 8y ago
You can't change Chinese law from inside China either. The only winning move is not to play.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

diminoten 8y ago

I don't think it's fair to try and nitpick people's ethical decisions like this. Imagine yes, this person would work for Amazon even though they're in China too. Does that make them not working for Google because they're in China a bad choice? I don't think so. Are we really prepared to tear everyone down who isn't absolute in their morality?

bduerst 8y ago
A moral inconsistency is not a nitpick when it's the entire industry. Their logic makes Google a better employer than Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and any other tech company currently operating in China. Saying they spurned Google because the company was considering going to China is disengenious, since the majority of the substitute employers are already in China.
- diminoten 8y ago
  You're saying his moral position is invalid because he doesn't apply it consistently, and that is not true, and also possibly harmful.
  - bduerst 8y ago
    I said the moral position is disingenuous because it is both inconsistent and opposite to what he is describing, when considering all things related.
    - diminoten 8y ago
      But each "related" decision is different, and there is no accurate generalization, by the very nature of what a generalization is.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Saying they spurned Google...the majority of the substitute employers are already in China. There is life outside of the FAANG/GAFAM bubble. If you refuse to work at Google, it doesn't mean that you're then obligated to work at Amazon or Microsoft, etc.

int_19h 8y ago

There's a big difference between operating a business in China in general, and operating a business that necessarily involves implementing their surveillance infrastructure.

Buge 8y ago
And Bing doesn't, while Dragonfly does?
- int_19h 8y ago
  I honestly have no idea. Last I heard, Bing is blocked in China, which I assume means that there are things that come in its search result that Chinese government doesn't like. But Dragonfly [ostensibly] went well beyond just censoring results, in that it implemented specific tools like linking search requests with phone numbers identifying people who made those requests. That's straight-up aiding and abetting oppressing people - political opposition, for example, or even unorganized dissenters. I can't believe we are even seriously talking about whether this is okay or not.
  - NamTaf 8y ago
    bing.com redirects to a Chinese version of Bing, which prioritises Chinese sites. I have no basis for saying this beyond not knowing how they could do this otherwise, but I would assume that they must censor results to exist there. I don't know if they go further, such as you describe Dragonfly plans to do.