Perhaps is more companies refused to do business in a country due to diabolical laws, people would start voting against politicians that create diabolical laws.

So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable? Why not going all the way down and let those companies write beautiful laws and also enforce them, everywhere in the world?

>So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable?

Why not? They, like anyone else traveling or doing business internationally, should decide which countries should be avoided. They can use whatever opinions or judgements they want. It is possible for a huge international corporation to have some sway on a country by not doing business there. But that's not always a bad thing. I'm more afraid of bad governments never suffering from bad decisions than this slippery slope.

They're private companies. They're free to decide which countries to serve in. That is very different from dictating the laws in the countries. In one case, they're sacrificing profits for company values. In the other case, they're forcing others to follow their laws. I honestly wouldn't care if a conservative Christian software company decided not to do business in California because they thought the state had immoral laws. That doesn't mean they're forcing their laws on us.

I think if a law goes against your company values, such as egrariously stomping on human rights, you should have a principle and a backbone and not sacrifice those value to make money.

> So it's up to Google and other international companies to decide which laws are diabolical, which laws are bad and which can be tolerable?

Why not? If they can decide which speech is tolerated on their platforms and which isn't, then why not this?

There are basic human rights, that when breached by a law, make the law a crime. 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.

But Google leaving hasn’t improved the civil rights situation in China. This appears to be a moral matter that is beyond the scope of Googles.

Yes, but Google are not cooperating in that. If you are witnessing a crime that you cannot stop, does it mean that if the criminal gives you a thousand or even a million dollars, you will help them because the crime will happen anyway?

When you make a moral call, do you not forecast a fork in the road where you might choose the morally superior destiny? Or does one merely move moral words without the corresponding conviction to move moral results?

Lots of "moral" in your comment and it crowds the meaning for me.

If you are accusing me that I'm preaching and not following my own words, that is a big assumption on your side.

> 2010 Google left China for those reasons. Much have changed since then.

This is what I'm accusing you of. How has Chinese affairs changed for the better after Google?

Not OP. But are you telling since Google's course of action didn't had any impact of altering actions of Chinese government, they (Google) should have stayed put.

If you see a man being killed, would you go to the killer and say: "This guy is already dead and nobody can prosecute you because there are no sheriff in the county, but if you pay me, I'll help you with your laundry."? Because the question is not if Google can transform CCP, but if it would take part in its crimes. Unfortunately, there is no God or well-supplied jewish conspiracy that sits above us, knows everything, and can deliver direct consequences for our actions. So, we have a choice to make: to act in our direct interest or act against it and bet on a vague conjecture that a collective sacrifice will deliver a better future for everyone. So, asking if the choice of one changes anything is the wrong question in this case.

Of course, all things above are not simple. There is the prisoners dilema "if not me, then someone else will do it", and "if it is me, I can prevent even worse from happening", but there is also the "slippery slope" where making small concessions leads to more and more concessions. So, everyone make there choices and we all leave with the consequences.

I'm going to disagree with you there. Have civil rights in China improved or worsened? Could they be even worse if Google hadn't left.

You're right that this is beyond the scope of Google in the same way that it's beyond the scope of any individual. But together humans can slowly influence other humans and doing the right thing might be a tiny influence but eventually these might add up.

We don't know if Google's actions did make them a tiny bit less bad or not

It's always worth remembering: Google couched leaving China in 2010 in humanitarian / ethical terms, but the reason they left was extremely clear: they got hacked internally by Chinese agents using physical access to the intranet. While Google got their security house in order, the most prudent course of action to protect their own company (including their employees) was to cut that physical access.

Google restarted business in China around the same time it was able to bring the BeyondCorp initiative online.

I agree that Google needs to follow the law where they operate. I do think they should have challenged the demand in court, however. That would show that they at least tried to stand up for their app developers.

Sure, but if the users could side load applications then even if the government would demand the giants to remove X app or book the user could find a way. People were listening to forbidden radio stations in secret and this was possible because DRM did not exist on the radio and TV equipment.

Google allowed side loading these apps, right? At least for now?

Yes, Android allows side loading but in fact it depends on the company that makes the device. Apple makes the OS and the only iOS devices so they control everything.