3 ms·

I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few

by Jetrel 6y ago

I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship). A company like Google might not have the power to say no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to have considerable heft against a nation that can't credibly mount a replacement for something like Google. Laws aren't absolute - like all other human institutions, they're subject to pressure. Put enough pressure on and they can switch from something being forbidden to being allowed. (In the past, corporate pressure has been "up to and including outright overthrow of a government", in the case of what was done to the Honduras on behalf of the United Fruit Company, so ... some options are off the table because they're immoral, but corporate pressure don't have any hard ceiling on what it can theoretically accomplish.)

FlownScepter 6y ago
> I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship). And my point isn't to denigrate those efforts as they are, merely to point out that the fact you're permitted to engage in those efforts is contingent on those efforts remaining ineffective. Those in power will never concede power to those without peacefully, this is a lesson history teaches us all the way back to the city state of Ur. If you ever were to engage in efforts that caused legitimate destabilization of the power structures above you, those efforts would be put down. Probably legally, possibly violently, but they will be put down. The fact that some Governments are quicker to pull the metaphorical triggers, doesn't mean the others are therefore not armed. > A company like Google might not have the power to say no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to have considerable heft against a nation that can't credibly mount a replacement for something like Google. This presumes the Government in question sees value in a thing it is trying to actively remove. Like I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think it's a major concern of Pakistan's leadership that their people have ready access to Stadia and Chrome? Or the search engine itself, for that matter?

by Jetrel 6y ago

FlownScepter 6y ago

> I mean, to step past the common dodge of moral relativism, the whole thing behind this is a tacit agreement amongst a lot of tech-inclined folk that quite a few cultures (including powerful, western cultural movements, past-and-present) are just plain evil. So we're using whatever tools we have to subvert and change these cultures, and we're putting leverage on companies we have cultural hegemony over to try to work around - in whatever ways they can - laws that we consider similarly evil. It's a culture war, plain and simple. I've chosen to use "we" here to be honest about my own affiliations in this particular case (of anti-Ahmadiyya censorship). And my point isn't to denigrate those efforts as they are, merely to point out that the fact you're permitted to engage in those efforts is contingent on those efforts remaining ineffective. Those in power will never concede power to those without peacefully, this is a lesson history teaches us all the way back to the city state of Ur. If you ever were to engage in efforts that caused legitimate destabilization of the power structures above you, those efforts would be put down. Probably legally, possibly violently, but they will be put down. The fact that some Governments are quicker to pull the metaphorical triggers, doesn't mean the others are therefore not armed. > A company like Google might not have the power to say no to censorship in China, but they're a lot more likely to have considerable heft against a nation that can't credibly mount a replacement for something like Google. This presumes the Government in question sees value in a thing it is trying to actively remove. Like I'm not trying to be rude, but do you think it's a major concern of Pakistan's leadership that their people have ready access to Stadia and Chrome? Or the search engine itself, for that matter?