3 ms·

Well yeah Netflix does business in Saudi Arabia so they have to follow the local laws. I honestly don't get why this is so shocking? What is the alternative- t

Well yeah Netflix does business in Saudi Arabia so they have to follow the local laws. I honestly don't get why this is so shocking? What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws? No way in hell would I sign up for that.

blue4 8y ago
> the internet is ruled by no one is what i think they are getting at
- Tsubasachan 8y ago
  Anarchy? Cool. But I really wonder how many people want to live with the consequences of that.
winter_blue 8y ago
The ideal situation is to have freedom of expression. That includes free press. It’s not a concept owned by any country or culture. It’s universlly desirable. You don’t want the government committing acts of violence against you for your speech. The lack of this freedom is morally abhorrent and condemnation-worthy. > What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws Your notions of national sovereignty and individual freedom are so terrible, I don’t know if I should even respond. Individual sovereignty supersedes governmental authority in a civil-libertarian moral-political framework. No government has any sort of moral right to be violent against a person for speech. And the concept of national sovereignty is a farce. Countries like China and SA are not even democracies, so by respecting their “sovereignty” you’re respecting the minorities in power over those countries. But even democracies have absolutely no right to claim sovereignty — having 60% of a country’s vote will never legitimize erasing fundamental human freedoms. (Or else everything the NSDAP did would be morally A-OK.) A general moral operating principle to apply when analyzing political issues is the “zero aggression principle”: https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org
- beatgammit 8y ago
  That's all fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but the practical matter is that Netflix has two choices: - remove the content - face legal repercussions (likely ending in not being able to do business in SA or being forced to do the first option) SA can enforce its will through military force, and that's about the most practical claim to sovereignty you can get. Also, is there a practical difference between the NAP and the ZAP?
what_ever 8y ago
Just curious, do you have same opinion when the country in question is China?

blue4 8y ago

> the internet is ruled by no one is what i think they are getting at

Tsubasachan 8y ago
Anarchy? Cool. But I really wonder how many people want to live with the consequences of that.

winter_blue 8y ago

The ideal situation is to have freedom of expression. That includes free press. It’s not a concept owned by any country or culture. It’s universlly desirable. You don’t want the government committing acts of violence against you for your speech. The lack of this freedom is morally abhorrent and condemnation-worthy. > What is the alternative- the internet is ruled by US laws Your notions of national sovereignty and individual freedom are so terrible, I don’t know if I should even respond. Individual sovereignty supersedes governmental authority in a civil-libertarian moral-political framework. No government has any sort of moral right to be violent against a person for speech. And the concept of national sovereignty is a farce. Countries like China and SA are not even democracies, so by respecting their “sovereignty” you’re respecting the minorities in power over those countries. But even democracies have absolutely no right to claim sovereignty — having 60% of a country’s vote will never legitimize erasing fundamental human freedoms. (Or else everything the NSDAP did would be morally A-OK.) A general moral operating principle to apply when analyzing political issues is the “zero aggression principle”: https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org

beatgammit 8y ago
That's all fine and dandy from a philosophical standpoint, but the practical matter is that Netflix has two choices: - remove the content - face legal repercussions (likely ending in not being able to do business in SA or being forced to do the first option) SA can enforce its will through military force, and that's about the most practical claim to sovereignty you can get. Also, is there a practical difference between the NAP and the ZAP?

what_ever 8y ago

Just curious, do you have same opinion when the country in question is China?