3 ms·

> That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. No, not at all. Since Valve is not a democratic organization its e

> That is a rather authoritarian view of the law & power of governments that you have there. No, not at all. Since Valve is not a democratic organization its employees aren't free to begin with. Restricting its owners' "freedom" to tell their employees what to do is hardly authoritarian – freedom is about deciding what you do yourself. > A company would not, for example, be able to opt-out of assisting China with their censorship initiatives, or stop business with them all together if there was no other choice. The difference is that China is not a democracy.

ineedasername 7y ago
It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. And that degree would be just a little bit closer if your vision of state-based compulsion were enacted by France or the EU. There is nothing wrong or unethical if Valve makes the determination that it cannot profitably do business with France. It happens all of the time when a business decides it cannot profitably compete in a market where the regulatory or tariff structure doesn't let it be successful. Due to such laws, they back out of the market. I really don't understand how that point can be reasonable debated. What would be wrong would be for Valve to find loop holes that allowed it to continue doing business while circumventing these laws.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- anoncake 7y ago
  > It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. I have explained why I disagree in this case. > In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. It's a matter of kind. China is not a democracy, therefore it does not have a legitimate government. For that reason alone, there is nothing immoral about ignoring orders from Beijing.

ineedasername 7y ago

It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. And that degree would be just a little bit closer if your vision of state-based compulsion were enacted by France or the EU. There is nothing wrong or unethical if Valve makes the determination that it cannot profitably do business with France. It happens all of the time when a business decides it cannot profitably compete in a market where the regulatory or tariff structure doesn't let it be successful. Due to such laws, they back out of the market. I really don't understand how that point can be reasonable debated. What would be wrong would be for Valve to find loop holes that allowed it to continue doing business while circumventing these laws.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anoncake 7y ago
> It is authoritarian for a government to be able to compel a company to do business in its market. I have explained why I disagree in this case. > In the case of China vs France it's just a matter of degree, not kind. It's a matter of kind. China is not a democracy, therefore it does not have a legitimate government. For that reason alone, there is nothing immoral about ignoring orders from Beijing.