Responding to a court order, YouTube and its sister company, Google, will block viewers in the region from viewing videos of the song, “Glory to Hong Kong.”
I don’t get the premise of posts like that. We scold Google and other corps for not following the laws they are supposed to follow (data protection for example).and then we scold them for daring to follow lawmakers, when we don’t like the laws they follow. Which is it?
I think the point is to scold Google for the harm they cause or fail to prevent. When the law is written so as to genuinely prevent harm (data protection, for ex) then I will scold those who don’t follow it. When the law is written so as to be ineffective at best and harmful at worst, I will scold those who do follow it.
The point isn’t to be consistent with regards to the law, as the law itself is not always either consistent nor “good”.
… unless it is me that isn’t understanding your own comment?
Human Rights are higher than any law. Just because its law in China, does not mean it is correct to follow the law. It is not we decide which laws to follow, but it is universally in entire world the right thing to support Human Rights, regardless of any law.
It is literally either follow this law or cease operations here. Both would end in the song being blocked anyway.
Which does not change the fact that Google does it. So the reason why Google supports China and their anti Human Rights laws is, because of money. That’s what we criticize.
It doesn’t make sense to expect any kind of morality from an evil system. Google is just a mindless legal entity seeking rents/profits while the profiteers try to avoid state violence. It’s like getting mad at a leech for being a leech.
I don’t get the premise of posts like that. We scold Google and other corps for not following the laws they are supposed to follow (data protection for example).and then we scold them for daring to follow lawmakers, when we don’t like the laws they follow. Which is it?
I think the point is to scold Google for the harm they cause or fail to prevent. When the law is written so as to genuinely prevent harm (data protection, for ex) then I will scold those who don’t follow it. When the law is written so as to be ineffective at best and harmful at worst, I will scold those who do follow it.
The point isn’t to be consistent with regards to the law, as the law itself is not always either consistent nor “good”.
… unless it is me that isn’t understanding your own comment?
So we want Google and such to ignore laws when we think they should be ignored? Who decides which is which then?
Human Rights are higher than any law. Just because its law in China, does not mean it is correct to follow the law. It is not we decide which laws to follow, but it is universally in entire world the right thing to support Human Rights, regardless of any law.
The people? Democracy really isn’t that hard.
Maybe we need a law to know which laws to follow.
If the nazis are in power and the law says you have to obey the nazis, is it morally right to obey the nazis?
It is literally either follow this law or cease operations here. Both would end in the song being blocked anyway.
Mind you, I wish we were that level of strict when it came to our data privacy laws.
Which does not change the fact that Google does it. So the reason why Google supports China and their anti Human Rights laws is, because of money. That’s what we criticize.
They had a choice between complying to censorship, or refusing to play along and if necessary stop doing business in Hong Kong.
In the past, Google Search got out of China for the same reason.
It doesn’t make sense to expect any kind of morality from an evil system. Google is just a mindless legal entity seeking rents/profits while the profiteers try to avoid state violence. It’s like getting mad at a leech for being a leech.
I think the reason people are mad is less about “google please follow the law” and more about “google please do the right thing”
The post title and teaser text make a neutral statement.