5 ms·

I think what you're saying is that morality exists outside of the rule of law, which I agree with. But then you're saying that you think that companies like Go

by evmar 7y ago

I think what you're saying is that morality exists outside of the rule of law, which I agree with. But then you're saying that you think that companies like Google are morally equipped to be able to determine this law better than states would, which I think is where you lose me. Legal systems are also imperfect but at least there is oversight and (at least symbolic) input from citizens.

microcolonel 7y ago
A number of people today seem to be willing to grant that Google is a better arbiter of morality than the real selectorate, and this is not a mistake I think. Google clearly has an interest in circumventing U.S. cultural norms (for financial and ideological profit), and the best way to do it is to convince some number of Americans that they're suppressing the "bad people" and promoting the "good people". This time around, the useful dupes are mostly authoritarian progressives. Over time, the authoritarian progressives will make the association in the other direction: they will begin to believe that whoever Google suppresses must be a "bad person".
- natechols 7y ago
  This is an article about Google being confronted by an authoritarian government that opposes US cultural norms... and you've somehow transformed it into exactly the opposite.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    There is no opposite to US cultural norms. There is a wide spectrum of qualities and values of those qualities. However you want to characterize those "norms", a single act does not adequately engender or stifle a sense of Google's overall aims.
- creato 7y ago
  > Google clearly has an interest in circumventing U.S. cultural norms (for financial and ideological profit) This is absolutely not clear at all.
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    Why wouldn't better access to information be good for Google? (the literal information company)
close04 7y ago
Morality can exist outside of the law but the law is not about morality. The law is/should be the "stable" version of morality because the latter is a lot more flexible than the former. And in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society every once in a while. Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future? And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality. For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.
  - close04 7y ago
    > there is no such thing as the morals of society Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"? > For example, in my morals But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree. Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.
DennisP 7y ago
How much oversight and input do you think citizens have in Russia? Seems like in this particular case, their government is directly opposing the citizens who, in theory, would provide that oversight.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  That is true, but it's still not for corporations to decide. I hate the system they have imposed on them but that still doesn't give me the right to decide what's right and wrong. Same goes with China. If Google doesn't like it then they can always exert their influence in other ways.
  - DennisP 7y ago
    I'm having trouble thinking why an undemocratic government would have any more of a right to decide. We don't believe in the divine right of kings anymore. In this particular situation, the protestors are demanding free elections, exactly what would give the government legitimacy. Seems to me the easiest policy to justify would be for corporations to support democratic governments and movements, and ignore the demands of despots.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    Corporations can decide whatever they wish and face the appropriate consequences. For example, if I owned a hypothetical corporation whose goal was to provide tools for people in harsh political climates to utilize democratic means of resistance against their government, who is it for to decide whether or not giving this technology to, say, the people of Hong Kong is the right thing? Is it China's? Haha, no. It's mine. It's my decision. This is another example of generalization to the point of harm. Not all corporations are equal. They are just groups of people with shared goals.
glenstein 7y ago
>But then you're saying that you think that companies like Google are morally equipped to be able to determine this law better than states would I don't think it's outrageous at all to think Google's determinations are more reasonable than those of Russia. It's only when you start smudge out Russia, pluralizing it into "states" generally, that it becomes a harder question. And I personally think this move blurs the focus of conversation, and degrades it. As jayd16 and other commenters are pointing out, this conversation is getting muddied with slippery-slopeism.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Exactly. Such generalization in the world of politics only serves to confuse and distract from the reality we live in.
jayd16 7y ago
Flawlessly moral or not, choosing to do nothing or choosing to obey is also a moral decision. But you're also muddying a clear case of free speech, that Americans find a basic human right with, slippery-slopeism.

by evmar 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

A number of people today seem to be willing to grant that Google is a better arbiter of morality than the real selectorate, and this is not a mistake I think. Google clearly has an interest in circumventing U.S. cultural norms (for financial and ideological profit), and the best way to do it is to convince some number of Americans that they're suppressing the "bad people" and promoting the "good people". This time around, the useful dupes are mostly authoritarian progressives. Over time, the authoritarian progressives will make the association in the other direction: they will begin to believe that whoever Google suppresses must be a "bad person".

natechols 7y ago
This is an article about Google being confronted by an authoritarian government that opposes US cultural norms... and you've somehow transformed it into exactly the opposite.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  There is no opposite to US cultural norms. There is a wide spectrum of qualities and values of those qualities. However you want to characterize those "norms", a single act does not adequately engender or stifle a sense of Google's overall aims.
creato 7y ago
> Google clearly has an interest in circumventing U.S. cultural norms (for financial and ideological profit) This is absolutely not clear at all.
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  Why wouldn't better access to information be good for Google? (the literal information company)

close04 7y ago

Morality can exist outside of the law but the law is not about morality. The law is/should be the "stable" version of morality because the latter is a lot more flexible than the former. And in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society every once in a while. Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future? And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?

zzzcpan 7y ago
To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality. For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.
- close04 7y ago
  > there is no such thing as the morals of society Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"? > For example, in my morals But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree. Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.

DennisP 7y ago

How much oversight and input do you think citizens have in Russia? Seems like in this particular case, their government is directly opposing the citizens who, in theory, would provide that oversight.

cameronbrown 7y ago
That is true, but it's still not for corporations to decide. I hate the system they have imposed on them but that still doesn't give me the right to decide what's right and wrong. Same goes with China. If Google doesn't like it then they can always exert their influence in other ways.
- DennisP 7y ago
  I'm having trouble thinking why an undemocratic government would have any more of a right to decide. We don't believe in the divine right of kings anymore. In this particular situation, the protestors are demanding free elections, exactly what would give the government legitimacy. Seems to me the easiest policy to justify would be for corporations to support democratic governments and movements, and ignore the demands of despots.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  Corporations can decide whatever they wish and face the appropriate consequences. For example, if I owned a hypothetical corporation whose goal was to provide tools for people in harsh political climates to utilize democratic means of resistance against their government, who is it for to decide whether or not giving this technology to, say, the people of Hong Kong is the right thing? Is it China's? Haha, no. It's mine. It's my decision. This is another example of generalization to the point of harm. Not all corporations are equal. They are just groups of people with shared goals.

glenstein 7y ago

>But then you're saying that you think that companies like Google are morally equipped to be able to determine this law better than states would I don't think it's outrageous at all to think Google's determinations are more reasonable than those of Russia. It's only when you start smudge out Russia, pluralizing it into "states" generally, that it becomes a harder question. And I personally think this move blurs the focus of conversation, and degrades it. As jayd16 and other commenters are pointing out, this conversation is getting muddied with slippery-slopeism.

soulofmischief 7y ago
Exactly. Such generalization in the world of politics only serves to confuse and distract from the reality we live in.

jayd16 7y ago

Flawlessly moral or not, choosing to do nothing or choosing to obey is also a moral decision. But you're also muddying a clear case of free speech, that Americans find a basic human right with, slippery-slopeism.