3 ms·

It also seems reasonable that companies have to follow local laws to operate there. Corporations superseding states seems just as dystopian as state repression

It also seems reasonable that companies have to follow local laws to operate there. Corporations superseding states seems just as dystopian as state repression of dissent. Granted, there is either confusion or misrepresentation as Mastodon is also banned. The reporting seems pretty meagre; even strictly with these events, how are so many dying from batons and rubber bullets? Sure these can kill, but fourteen people?

netsharc 1y ago
It's awkward isn't it, because following local laws could mean being a helping hand of the oppressor... For an extreme example, an email company that is forced by a new law to reveal all emails of citizens of country X, or a payment app that has to upload all transactions to the government (and where the supreme court has ruled in favour of the surveillance state). The "moral" company would probably rather shut their operations, but even trillion-dollar companies relent... And who has the last word on what's moral?
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  > And who has the last word on what's moral? The standard assumption in business is that you follow local laws and customs as they are a proxy for the moral system of the local people. Are you operating a business or promoting western ideas?
  - graemep 1y ago
    Freedom is a western idea? Justice is a western idea?
    - monkeyelite 1y ago
      If you’re suggesting you have distilled humanity to the essential rights and values that are obviously true and transcend culture. Yes that’s a western value.
      - jt2190 1y ago
        I guess you’d disagree with Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights then, on the basis that these human rights are a “western” concept and the United Nations is a “western” institution? > Article 19 > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
        monkeyelite 1y ago
        UN is a western liberal organization. I didn’t say I agree or disagree - I said businesses generally aim to abide by local law, not engage in western political projects.
        graemep 1y ago
        You said because it is a proxy for local people's moral systems. Firstly, laws are not a great proxy for local people's moral systems in dictatorships. I am not sure they are even that reliable proxy in democracies. Secondly, while some exact expressions are of western origin, the general concept of freedom is pretty universal. Secondly, ideas of western origin might well be widely supported by people anywhere. Ideas spread. Finally, where do you draw the line? Will you be entirely amoral and cooperate with any laws? Will you supply torture implements because the government wants them? A surveillance system primarily aimed at a ethnic or religious minority, or to identify supporters of the opposition? Genocide? Most businesses claim to have some moral stance, and when they fail to stick to it it just looks like hypocrisy to me. A very visible example is the complete lack of rainbow logos in the same companies Chinese or Saudi operations during pride month - and media businesses that have a gay rights stance in the west will edit our gay scenes in Asia. Plenty of companies will claim to be anti-racist but do business than funds the Uighur genocide.
        monkeyelite 1y ago
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      Freedom to say whatever you'd like with no repercussions short of calling for violence is certainly a western idea. Freedom from hate speech, for instance, is something one might like that you cannot find in the US. Without qualifiers "freedom" is a floating signifier. I'm not sure what you mean by "justice".
      - graemep 1y ago
        A western idea in origin. According to the historian Tom Holland its a Christian idea in origin (read his book Dominion if you want an explanation) - does that mean atheists should not support it? its a good idea, everyone should adopt it. No repercussions for anything short of calling violence is actually an American idea, to some extent other Anglophone countries. It is not generally accepted in continental Europe which has always had far more restrictions on speech. So its not generically "western". On the other hand some level of free speech is widely supported by many people in non-western countries. its in a lot of constitutions, and people will generally say they support free speech.
nirava 1y ago
- Local law meant to censor heavily any dissent - several pro corruption measures passed in the last few years - the people have been angry for long - social media just meant people now have to come on the streets lazily pasting one of my comments from yesterday "So after sacking the wildly (and deservingly) popular Chairman of the National Electricity Authority, after allowing ministers to set arbitrary and uncapped salaries for themselves and their workers, after obstructing and undermining the wildly (and deservingly) popular mayor of the Capital, and after doing like 15 of these really major, objectively anti-nation things, and getting called out for it in Social Media by the commoners, the 73 year old Prime Minister (in many ways a Trump-like figure; immune to shame or criticism) moves to ban social media in the country. "
marcosdumay 1y ago
> It also seems reasonable that companies have to follow local laws to operate there. Yes. That's as reasonable as the people there protesting their own government.
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Did you read the next sentence?
  - marcosdumay 1y ago
    I'm not disagreeing. Corporations closing down there and moving away is completely reasonable. People protesting is completely reasonable. The government forcing the corporations out is as reasonable as the people there say it is... so not at all.

netsharc 1y ago

It's awkward isn't it, because following local laws could mean being a helping hand of the oppressor... For an extreme example, an email company that is forced by a new law to reveal all emails of citizens of country X, or a payment app that has to upload all transactions to the government (and where the supreme court has ruled in favour of the surveillance state). The "moral" company would probably rather shut their operations, but even trillion-dollar companies relent... And who has the last word on what's moral?

monkeyelite 1y ago
> And who has the last word on what's moral? The standard assumption in business is that you follow local laws and customs as they are a proxy for the moral system of the local people. Are you operating a business or promoting western ideas?
- graemep 1y ago
  Freedom is a western idea? Justice is a western idea?
  - monkeyelite 1y ago
    If you’re suggesting you have distilled humanity to the essential rights and values that are obviously true and transcend culture. Yes that’s a western value.
    - jt2190 1y ago
      I guess you’d disagree with Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights then, on the basis that these human rights are a “western” concept and the United Nations is a “western” institution? > Article 19 > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...
      - monkeyelite 1y ago
        UN is a western liberal organization. I didn’t say I agree or disagree - I said businesses generally aim to abide by local law, not engage in western political projects.
        graemep 1y ago
        You said because it is a proxy for local people's moral systems. Firstly, laws are not a great proxy for local people's moral systems in dictatorships. I am not sure they are even that reliable proxy in democracies. Secondly, while some exact expressions are of western origin, the general concept of freedom is pretty universal. Secondly, ideas of western origin might well be widely supported by people anywhere. Ideas spread. Finally, where do you draw the line? Will you be entirely amoral and cooperate with any laws? Will you supply torture implements because the government wants them? A surveillance system primarily aimed at a ethnic or religious minority, or to identify supporters of the opposition? Genocide? Most businesses claim to have some moral stance, and when they fail to stick to it it just looks like hypocrisy to me. A very visible example is the complete lack of rainbow logos in the same companies Chinese or Saudi operations during pride month - and media businesses that have a gay rights stance in the west will edit our gay scenes in Asia. Plenty of companies will claim to be anti-racist but do business than funds the Uighur genocide.
        monkeyelite 1y ago
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    Freedom to say whatever you'd like with no repercussions short of calling for violence is certainly a western idea. Freedom from hate speech, for instance, is something one might like that you cannot find in the US. Without qualifiers "freedom" is a floating signifier. I'm not sure what you mean by "justice".
    - graemep 1y ago
      A western idea in origin. According to the historian Tom Holland its a Christian idea in origin (read his book Dominion if you want an explanation) - does that mean atheists should not support it? its a good idea, everyone should adopt it. No repercussions for anything short of calling violence is actually an American idea, to some extent other Anglophone countries. It is not generally accepted in continental Europe which has always had far more restrictions on speech. So its not generically "western". On the other hand some level of free speech is widely supported by many people in non-western countries. its in a lot of constitutions, and people will generally say they support free speech.

nirava 1y ago

- Local law meant to censor heavily any dissent - several pro corruption measures passed in the last few years - the people have been angry for long - social media just meant people now have to come on the streets lazily pasting one of my comments from yesterday "So after sacking the wildly (and deservingly) popular Chairman of the National Electricity Authority, after allowing ministers to set arbitrary and uncapped salaries for themselves and their workers, after obstructing and undermining the wildly (and deservingly) popular mayor of the Capital, and after doing like 15 of these really major, objectively anti-nation things, and getting called out for it in Social Media by the commoners, the 73 year old Prime Minister (in many ways a Trump-like figure; immune to shame or criticism) moves to ban social media in the country. "

marcosdumay 1y ago

> It also seems reasonable that companies have to follow local laws to operate there. Yes. That's as reasonable as the people there protesting their own government.

MangoToupe 1y ago
Did you read the next sentence?
- marcosdumay 1y ago
  I'm not disagreeing. Corporations closing down there and moving away is completely reasonable. People protesting is completely reasonable. The government forcing the corporations out is as reasonable as the people there say it is... so not at all.