6 ms·

The main priority of "Big tech" is profitability not freedom. They're not "giving in" as much as they're following a business model to maximize revenue. Ultimat

by boh 4y ago

The main priority of "Big tech" is profitability not freedom. They're not "giving in" as much as they're following a business model to maximize revenue. Ultimately internet censorship will benefit the biggest companies who are able to keep up with the regulations. It will effectively grant them unofficial monopolies as smaller companies struggle to keep up.

vijaybritto 4y ago
IMO I dont think this is true. If that was the case then big tech wouldn't have closed shop in Russia for their crimes. Their morality is just conditional
- hef19898 4y ago
  One word: sanctions. And breaking those is expensive in more than one way.
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  Their morality is guided by the Overton window[1] of what most customers and employees find acceptable. Being based out of mostly western countries, corporations like Google and Microsoft found the belief system of quitting Russian business initiatives as most acceptable to the public, and hence executed that plan. A western worldview where it may have been more acceptable for Russia to initiate a war would have resulted in a different outcome. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- foverzar 4y ago
  > big tech wouldn't have closed shop in Russia for their crimes Do you really believe big tech cared about some wArCrImEs, instead of getting a call from their lobbyist/investor/gov.account advising them to play along, or else? JFYI, YouTube (and the whole of Google) is still operational in Russia, I can still use my iPhone, pay for iCloud, and buy a new one as soon as I want. Business is business, I don't understand why people ever suppose it would be fighting for their political goals.
themitigating 4y ago
What does this have to do with the article on the Indian government increasing control of the internet?
- supriyo-biswas 4y ago
  A corporation trying to align with a specific belief system would mean some countries would fall outside of it. This leaves them with two choices - either they stop doing business in said countries, or maximize profits by conducting business in those countries by loosening their belief system to include the countries' negatives, such as censorship of political discourse in this case.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Yes, companies have to adhere to the laws of a country or stop doing business there. The blame lies with the Indian Government
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
      OP is arguing that they should choose to stop doing business instead of adhere to the laws.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        The article is about the Indian government not tech companies, stop encouraging this obvious deflection
  - managerclass 4y ago
    I guess my question is if US tech companies don't comply with the Indian government and gets shut down, wouldn't an identical company who will comply with the Indian government just take its place? The censorship is taking place either way right? Why not take the money?
    - 4y ago

by boh 4y ago

vijaybritto 4y ago

IMO I dont think this is true. If that was the case then big tech wouldn't have closed shop in Russia for their crimes. Their morality is just conditional

hef19898 4y ago
One word: sanctions. And breaking those is expensive in more than one way.
supriyo-biswas 4y ago
Their morality is guided by the Overton window[1] of what most customers and employees find acceptable. Being based out of mostly western countries, corporations like Google and Microsoft found the belief system of quitting Russian business initiatives as most acceptable to the public, and hence executed that plan. A western worldview where it may have been more acceptable for Russia to initiate a war would have resulted in a different outcome. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
foverzar 4y ago
> big tech wouldn't have closed shop in Russia for their crimes Do you really believe big tech cared about some wArCrImEs, instead of getting a call from their lobbyist/investor/gov.account advising them to play along, or else? JFYI, YouTube (and the whole of Google) is still operational in Russia, I can still use my iPhone, pay for iCloud, and buy a new one as soon as I want. Business is business, I don't understand why people ever suppose it would be fighting for their political goals.

themitigating 4y ago

What does this have to do with the article on the Indian government increasing control of the internet?

supriyo-biswas 4y ago
A corporation trying to align with a specific belief system would mean some countries would fall outside of it. This leaves them with two choices - either they stop doing business in said countries, or maximize profits by conducting business in those countries by loosening their belief system to include the countries' negatives, such as censorship of political discourse in this case.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Yes, companies have to adhere to the laws of a country or stop doing business there. The blame lies with the Indian Government
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
    OP is arguing that they should choose to stop doing business instead of adhere to the laws.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      The article is about the Indian government not tech companies, stop encouraging this obvious deflection
- managerclass 4y ago
  I guess my question is if US tech companies don't comply with the Indian government and gets shut down, wouldn't an identical company who will comply with the Indian government just take its place? The censorship is taking place either way right? Why not take the money?
  - 4y ago