6 ms·

Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. You cannot have both. Just as a private citizen cannot just waltz into one of the

Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. You cannot have both. Just as a private citizen cannot just waltz into one of these countries and do as they please "because I can do this at home" why should we expect a private company to do as such? Simply put, if our government will not why do we feel we should hold private companies to a higher standard?

rayiner 8y ago
Companies like Netflix and Google have leverage they could be using for good.
- oaiey 8y ago
  And they should. However, they need to comply first to local law and then lobby to change something.
- bedhead 8y ago
  These are profit-seeking enterprises, not political activist organizations. I don't know why more people confuse the two. This is a rabbit hole companies need to be very careful about going down. Besides, this whole thing is irony of the highest order. We scream bloody murder about Saudi Arabia explicitly censoring a comedian, meanwhile in the US we have an arguably worse form of implicit censorship where if you make an offensive (and harmless) joke, a bunch of noisy leftist maniacs go into high gear to end your career.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    They're only exclusively profit seeking if owners/controllers agree for it to be so. To me it seems extremely strange to put financial profit above humanity, or above morality. It's not confusion, it's choice.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > These are profit-seeking enterprises, not political activist organizations. I don't know why more people confuse the two. There is no confusion. Some people simply are of the opinion that declaring profit as your purpose is not sufficient to justify hurting other people.
  - oaiey 8y ago
    As a country you can apply standards to companies which are operating in your legal framework. Germany for example prosecutes (German and probably foreign) companies which bribe in other countries. Siemens was a big example in the 90s. Same applies to free speech. The US could apply a law to their companies but they do not (because free unbound capitalism). I ignore anything related to national security in this argument :).
  - stupidcar 8y ago
    We expect individuals to behave morally. Companies are richer, more powerful, more organised and more capable than individuals, so why should we hold them to a lower standard of behaviour? Human society of any sort is only possible because our species evolved beyond purely selfish behaviour to co-operate for the greater good. Modern civilisation is reliant on the majority of individuals following moral codes, instilled by cultural, religious and familial institutions and enforced by community action. We do not allow "profit-seeking" as a pass for acting immorally. If companies want to enjoy the rights given to individuals within our societies, such as freedom to operate, equal treatment and protection under the law, etc. Then they also need to be bound by the same moral codes that allows successful co-operation between individual people. Allowing companies to have full legal rights while exempting them from moral responsibility is just as unfair and dangerous as it is to give a certain class of human the freedom to ignore moral norms without consequence.
alkibiades 8y ago
why can’t we have both? why can’t we use our companies to spread proper values? isn’t this the same backlash of google going into china? would netflix also help MBS chop up journalists or oppress women?
- StavrosK 8y ago
  Because there are no "proper values", there are "your values". https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...
  - perfmode 8y ago
    Just because morality is subjective doesn’t mean there aren’t rights that we must deem fundamental and defend globally. This knee jerk relativism is getting old. Just because morality exists outside of systems of formal logic, doesnt make it any less important. It is still up for debate.
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      Which right is more fundamental? My right of deciding my own morality, or your right of enforcing your global values?
      - perfmode 8y ago
        > All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The above is an example of a “global value” to be enforced. If that is being violated anywhere, it is a problem.
      - ForHackernews 8y ago
        Nobody is forcing Saudis to watch a Netflix show they find morally repugnant -- the Saudi government prevented its citizens from seeing something politically sensitive. I can't believe posters on HN are defending this.
atomical 8y ago
The government sanctions countries and declares war at the cost of decreasing trade with those countries.
jstanley 8y ago
> Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. Except Netflix isn't "trading with Saudi Arabia". Netflix is trying to sell subscriptions to Saudi individuals, and it is the Saudi government that is trying to enforce censorship. 2 completely distinct groups.
- chaosphere2112 8y ago
  Yeah, but one of the main roles of pretty much every government is regulating what is sold in their markets. (Were this a less autocratic regime,I would have said "governments are just people", but I take your point on the government of SA being largely disjoint from the citizens)

rayiner 8y ago

Companies like Netflix and Google have leverage they could be using for good.

oaiey 8y ago
And they should. However, they need to comply first to local law and then lobby to change something.
bedhead 8y ago
These are profit-seeking enterprises, not political activist organizations. I don't know why more people confuse the two. This is a rabbit hole companies need to be very careful about going down. Besides, this whole thing is irony of the highest order. We scream bloody murder about Saudi Arabia explicitly censoring a comedian, meanwhile in the US we have an arguably worse form of implicit censorship where if you make an offensive (and harmless) joke, a bunch of noisy leftist maniacs go into high gear to end your career.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  They're only exclusively profit seeking if owners/controllers agree for it to be so. To me it seems extremely strange to put financial profit above humanity, or above morality. It's not confusion, it's choice.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > These are profit-seeking enterprises, not political activist organizations. I don't know why more people confuse the two. There is no confusion. Some people simply are of the opinion that declaring profit as your purpose is not sufficient to justify hurting other people.
- oaiey 8y ago
  As a country you can apply standards to companies which are operating in your legal framework. Germany for example prosecutes (German and probably foreign) companies which bribe in other countries. Siemens was a big example in the 90s. Same applies to free speech. The US could apply a law to their companies but they do not (because free unbound capitalism). I ignore anything related to national security in this argument :).
- stupidcar 8y ago
  We expect individuals to behave morally. Companies are richer, more powerful, more organised and more capable than individuals, so why should we hold them to a lower standard of behaviour? Human society of any sort is only possible because our species evolved beyond purely selfish behaviour to co-operate for the greater good. Modern civilisation is reliant on the majority of individuals following moral codes, instilled by cultural, religious and familial institutions and enforced by community action. We do not allow "profit-seeking" as a pass for acting immorally. If companies want to enjoy the rights given to individuals within our societies, such as freedom to operate, equal treatment and protection under the law, etc. Then they also need to be bound by the same moral codes that allows successful co-operation between individual people. Allowing companies to have full legal rights while exempting them from moral responsibility is just as unfair and dangerous as it is to give a certain class of human the freedom to ignore moral norms without consequence.

alkibiades 8y ago

why can’t we have both? why can’t we use our companies to spread proper values? isn’t this the same backlash of google going into china? would netflix also help MBS chop up journalists or oppress women?

StavrosK 8y ago
Because there are no "proper values", there are "your values". https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-e...
- perfmode 8y ago
  Just because morality is subjective doesn’t mean there aren’t rights that we must deem fundamental and defend globally. This knee jerk relativism is getting old. Just because morality exists outside of systems of formal logic, doesnt make it any less important. It is still up for debate.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    Which right is more fundamental? My right of deciding my own morality, or your right of enforcing your global values?
    - perfmode 8y ago
      > All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The above is an example of a “global value” to be enforced. If that is being violated anywhere, it is a problem.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      Nobody is forcing Saudis to watch a Netflix show they find morally repugnant -- the Saudi government prevented its citizens from seeing something politically sensitive. I can't believe posters on HN are defending this.

atomical 8y ago

The government sanctions countries and declares war at the cost of decreasing trade with those countries.

jstanley 8y ago

> Sorry, either stop trading with these countries or acquiesce to their demands. Except Netflix isn't "trading with Saudi Arabia". Netflix is trying to sell subscriptions to Saudi individuals, and it is the Saudi government that is trying to enforce censorship. 2 completely distinct groups.

chaosphere2112 8y ago
Yeah, but one of the main roles of pretty much every government is regulating what is sold in their markets. (Were this a less autocratic regime,I would have said "governments are just people", but I take your point on the government of SA being largely disjoint from the citizens)