4 ms·

It's also not fair to blame people (well, companies...) for obeying the law. Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law than one where they pi

It's also not fair to blame people (well, companies...) for obeying the law. Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law than one where they pick and choose what laws they would like to obey.

enriquto 6y ago
I agree with you. It's alright to blame them, but it's unfair at the same time. The world is not fair. EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty.
- kiallmacinnes 6y ago
  > EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty. Personally, I think a distinction is necessary. Companies IMO should absolutely obey the laws regardless of if they like them or not. It's entirely unfair to blame them for obeying the law. They (as well as individual people) are free to oppose those laws in an attempt to change them, however until they are changed, they should follow the laws or cease trading in the country who's laws they disagree with. It's entirely fair to blame them for not fighting stupid/wrong/harmful laws. Allowing companies to choose which laws they are going to obey is never going to end well.
  - mola 6y ago
    One way to fight a law is civil disobedience.
    - astura 6y ago
      You won't get that from Microsoft, they do a lot of business with the US government.
      - f6v 6y ago
        But consumers can express their stance by not doing business with MS. I believe that communities have enough power in this age.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I'm sorry, I cannot reply to your post without triggering Godwin's law.
    - archi42 6y ago
      There are countries in which being gay will still cause you serious trouble. Or not agreeing with the political leadership. We are quite privileged to just assume that following the law as written (AND interpreted by the judiciary) will mostly work out alright and doesn't cause us moral dilemma. And companies consist of people, too. Is it then all of a sudden morally acceptable to build spying software so your country's leadership can prey on it's political enemies? Or assist in persecuting discriminated groups? You don't have to cite long abolished laws or an industrialized killing machine for pointing that out ;-) though the post is really begging for it.
      - kiallmacinnes 6y ago
        We can all cite harmful laws, does that mean companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Should US companies be free to ignore laws related to sanctions because the UAE has made being gay illegal or because political opposition in China could land you in jail? Where do you draw the line? Specifically - for a US company as is being discussed.
        enriquto 6y ago
        > companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. The crucial word in your sentence is "all", with which nobody has agreed here. Of course nobody is above law. But sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, a particular law turns out to be immoral. In that case, and only in that case, it is wrong to follow that particular law, and it is right to do the illegal alternative. If a company is found to have followed an immoral law and performed harmful (but lawful) acts, it is right that society punish that company later (e.g., when the law situation is solved). More so in this case, when the company is overzealous in its application of that immoral law.
goodpoint 6y ago
You are making a strawman. Companies are often following the law strictly or loosely as it suits them. GitHub could have warned the company before blocking and/or blocked access only from Iran. It did neither.
- kiallmacinnes 6y ago
  > You are making a strawman. Companies are often following the law strictly or loosely as it suits them. You're right that companies don't always obey the law. However, what has that got to do with "Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law"? My point is that companies SHOULD obey the laws, not that they always do - and that - allowing and encouraging companies to pick and choose the laws they are going to obey is wrong, and will simply not end well. > GitHub could have warned the company before blocking and/or blocked access only from Iran. It did neither. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of the US laws regarding Iran to know if this is a lawful course of action to take upon a customer attempting to use your products/services from Iran. Maybe they could have? Maybe they can't? I've no idea & I've made no attempt to address anything other than the "It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws" comment.

enriquto 6y ago

I agree with you. It's alright to blame them, but it's unfair at the same time. The world is not fair. EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty.

kiallmacinnes 6y ago
> EDIT: concerning hypothetical worlds, I pretty much not want to live in a world were companies blindly follow the law regardless of how harmful it is. We have tried these worlds in the past and they were not pretty. Personally, I think a distinction is necessary. Companies IMO should absolutely obey the laws regardless of if they like them or not. It's entirely unfair to blame them for obeying the law. They (as well as individual people) are free to oppose those laws in an attempt to change them, however until they are changed, they should follow the laws or cease trading in the country who's laws they disagree with. It's entirely fair to blame them for not fighting stupid/wrong/harmful laws. Allowing companies to choose which laws they are going to obey is never going to end well.
- mola 6y ago
  One way to fight a law is civil disobedience.
  - astura 6y ago
    You won't get that from Microsoft, they do a lot of business with the US government.
    - f6v 6y ago
      But consumers can express their stance by not doing business with MS. I believe that communities have enough power in this age.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I'm sorry, I cannot reply to your post without triggering Godwin's law.
  - archi42 6y ago
    There are countries in which being gay will still cause you serious trouble. Or not agreeing with the political leadership. We are quite privileged to just assume that following the law as written (AND interpreted by the judiciary) will mostly work out alright and doesn't cause us moral dilemma. And companies consist of people, too. Is it then all of a sudden morally acceptable to build spying software so your country's leadership can prey on it's political enemies? Or assist in persecuting discriminated groups? You don't have to cite long abolished laws or an industrialized killing machine for pointing that out ;-) though the post is really begging for it.
    - kiallmacinnes 6y ago
      We can all cite harmful laws, does that mean companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Should US companies be free to ignore laws related to sanctions because the UAE has made being gay illegal or because political opposition in China could land you in jail? Where do you draw the line? Specifically - for a US company as is being discussed.
      - enriquto 6y ago
        > companies (and people) should be free to ignore all law? Yet you continue with your strawmans. Nobody said that. The crucial word in your sentence is "all", with which nobody has agreed here. Of course nobody is above law. But sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, a particular law turns out to be immoral. In that case, and only in that case, it is wrong to follow that particular law, and it is right to do the illegal alternative. If a company is found to have followed an immoral law and performed harmful (but lawful) acts, it is right that society punish that company later (e.g., when the law situation is solved). More so in this case, when the company is overzealous in its application of that immoral law.

goodpoint 6y ago

You are making a strawman. Companies are often following the law strictly or loosely as it suits them. GitHub could have warned the company before blocking and/or blocked access only from Iran. It did neither.

kiallmacinnes 6y ago
> You are making a strawman. Companies are often following the law strictly or loosely as it suits them. You're right that companies don't always obey the law. However, what has that got to do with "Personally, I'd rather a world where companies obey the law"? My point is that companies SHOULD obey the laws, not that they always do - and that - allowing and encouraging companies to pick and choose the laws they are going to obey is wrong, and will simply not end well. > GitHub could have warned the company before blocking and/or blocked access only from Iran. It did neither. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of the US laws regarding Iran to know if this is a lawful course of action to take upon a customer attempting to use your products/services from Iran. Maybe they could have? Maybe they can't? I've no idea & I've made no attempt to address anything other than the "It's alright to blame people for lawfully following harmful laws" comment.