5 ms·
Don't hold your breath.
by glaucon 5y ago
Don't hold your breath.
- bpodgursky 5y agoHN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
- mynameisash 5y agoI'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
- LAC-Tech 5y agoWell, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
- kadoban 5y agoYou're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
- LAC-Tech 5y agoI'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness. "I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say. I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
- ineedasername 5y agoHow is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
- buran77 5y agoIs the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means. Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
- ineedasername 5y agoIs the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
- buran77 5y agoNo, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing. [0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c/tumblr_nkdjhspeoX1rwkrdbo1_1280.jpg https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
- kadoban 5y agoI don't see it as being less principled then, it's just a less simplistic principle.
- LAC-Tech 5y agoI think strong principles are by their definition simplistic. As soon as you start having multiple clauses and subclauses, they become weak - and sometimes transparent.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cinquemb 5y ago> assuming that all governments are equally legitimate Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general: When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?). If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
- SturgeonsLaw 5y agoMaybe "picking and choosing principles" is not the ideal phrase, rather "picking and choosing targets", because not all actors are equally benevolent, and it can certainly be the case that some violate principles that others don't. For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
- ineedasername 5y agoIt's not picking and choosing your principals if the principal is "don't enable authoritarians" and so in one country you can follow all local laws and still live by that principal, but in another you need to ignore the local law to do so. Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
- Nicksil 5y ago>HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government. HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
- smt88 5y agoI disagree. I think most people want Google to ignore local governments in the context of secret subpoenas (US), govt-mandated hosting of content (as pushed by GOP in the US), censoring content (China/India/elsewhere), etc.