3 ms·

As a product of the United States you would hope that they would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as possible and take a principled stand occas

As a product of the United States you would hope that they would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as possible and take a principled stand occasionally.

nindalf 6y ago
There's a thin line between taking a principled stand and forcefully exporting your values to some other culture. For example, Germany outlaws Holocaust denial. It's not a crime in the US. Should Facebook follow German laws by taking down posts denying the Holocaust? Obviously they should follow local laws, most of us would agree. Here's the thing - there's only two principled stands here. Either tech giants always follow US law exclusively, forcing it on every country in the world OR they follow local laws as applicable, even if they don't agree with the laws. If a person says that following Turkish law outlawing the YPG isn't ok but following the German Holocaust law is, that's inconsistent.
- true_religion 6y ago
  Tech giants can’t force anything on anyone without being enabled by the local government. If Facebook does not follow German law, Germany will ban it and seize its German assets to pay the fines it owes.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    That's fine. So the same thing applies to Turkish law?
carmen_sandiego 6y ago
Given they can't change the government of Turkey, I would think maximizing the speech given to Turks within those constraints _is_ standing up for freedom of speech/expression. In theory, Facebook and others are subject to the same laws as a local company would be. In my experience (in China) though, what actually happens is the local companies will be much stricter, pre-emptively crushing speech they consider just 'risky' rather than actually illegal. Western companies, whose execs are somewhat insulated from local pressures, tend to do better. But only if they're allowed in the country in the first place, which means they have to commit to a certain minimum level of adherence.

As a product of the United States you would hope that they would stand up for freedom of speech/expression as much as possible and take a principled stand occasionally.

nindalf 6y ago

There's a thin line between taking a principled stand and forcefully exporting your values to some other culture. For example, Germany outlaws Holocaust denial. It's not a crime in the US. Should Facebook follow German laws by taking down posts denying the Holocaust? Obviously they should follow local laws, most of us would agree. Here's the thing - there's only two principled stands here. Either tech giants always follow US law exclusively, forcing it on every country in the world OR they follow local laws as applicable, even if they don't agree with the laws. If a person says that following Turkish law outlawing the YPG isn't ok but following the German Holocaust law is, that's inconsistent.

true_religion 6y ago
Tech giants can’t force anything on anyone without being enabled by the local government. If Facebook does not follow German law, Germany will ban it and seize its German assets to pay the fines it owes.
- nindalf 6y ago
  That's fine. So the same thing applies to Turkish law?

carmen_sandiego 6y ago

Given they can't change the government of Turkey, I would think maximizing the speech given to Turks within those constraints _is_ standing up for freedom of speech/expression. In theory, Facebook and others are subject to the same laws as a local company would be. In my experience (in China) though, what actually happens is the local companies will be much stricter, pre-emptively crushing speech they consider just 'risky' rather than actually illegal. Western companies, whose execs are somewhat insulated from local pressures, tend to do better. But only if they're allowed in the country in the first place, which means they have to commit to a certain minimum level of adherence.