The key difference is that most of the comparisons are towards democratic countries with judicial independence which makes the whole thing irrelevant. Following laws in New Zealand which could be changed if the people there find the laws unjust.
This is a difficult issue. I’m sick of seeing big western companies abasing themselves to the Chinese government over activities occurring outside China, such as US sports leagues and media companies suppressing opinions about Hong Kong expressed by people in the US or Europe. That’s got to stop and we need to make it clear to these companies that China’s influence on discourse outside China cannot be allowed.
Nevertheless we can’t expect people working and doing business inside a China itself to four Chinese law. We can push for them to stop doing business in China in extreme cases, but expecting companies to criminalise their own employees to satisfy our consciences is not reasonable.
The country’s own legal framework isn’t enough to decide for you.
I think your moral relativism is lame, both here and in your other comments. It might feel good to offload that responsibility, but if you do, and you operate in a country that has problematic laws, then your self-assured relativism can get others killed.
Not a very reliable mechanism, and kind of a story of a ticking time bomb.
It's wrong to offload that ethical responsibility entirely to others.
Things get better because we want them to be better, as people that build these things we have to care.
There are people in this world who are happy to write cigs than can be weaponised against those they disagree with.
So in that sense, I’d suggest you’re wrong.
Software Developers are not a homogeneous while who do or should think like you.
Whether or not we agree that way of being is reprehensible is a different matter, in which I tend to agree it is.
If people are doing what they think is ethical and they really think it's the right thing then at least that's consistent.
I might not agree - I might think it's terrible even, but there's genuine disagreement there and genuine discussion can be had about it (assuming discussion is still allowed).
What I'm arguing against is more about the people that know better, or are doing something that's in direct conflict with what they believe to be right. They rationalize it by off-loading that ethical responsibility to others (things like the legal framework of the country they're operating in, it's not my place to determine policy, etc.). They tell themselves their mere presence is helpful, or that if it wasn't them it'd be someone else who doesn't care as much as they do.
They structure something like this in their mind for the purpose of being able to hold these contradictory opinions that enable them to do something they think is wrong.
That's mostly what I'm fighting against.
It's one thing to argue that censorship of citizens is a good idea (I obviously disagree), but at least that's a real position.
These other ones are mostly rationalized bullshit.
Evil triumphs when good people do nothing, but it also triumphs when good people do evil things while telling themselves it's okay.
Thanks for the conversation and your comprehensive responses.
Fact is that the US government puts money over the very human rights it’s supposed to believe in. The US isn’t alone in this of course, but it’s where the majority of international human rights infringement companies reside.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...
Yeah, it’s only as good as the local laws and their enforcement.
Something to strive for though.
In other words, rights come from human dignity and inherent value. They do not spring into being by fiat from rulers and politicians.
Big ol' citation needed.
It shouldn’t be difficult to recall at least a handful of recently examples in the US. Uber and Apple come to mind.
If you don’t like them then lobby to change them.
Zoom needs to own up to being a Chinese company or stop bowing to the CCP, at least outside of China.