> A&G have a binary choice - serve users in (Oppressive Country X) or not
I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an ethical person. You're just an opportunist.
Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them, well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing. Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.
Context for anyone who doesn't know: Apple, by law, operates iCloud/iMessage servers in China in the physical control of the CCP (presumably enabling wiretapping and censorship on-demand) to be able to offer those services to iPhone users in China.
No matter what the PR departments of these corporations would have us believe, when push comes to shove it's always about the money. These corporations are fair-weather activists at best.
I think Larry and Sergey still basically control the thing. They both have far more money than they know what to do with. Why would they compromise that much when the money makes no difference to them?
Honestly, I didn't know that specific thing. I was speaking generally.
The first time I said it was to someone who told me that while they personally have no problem with people of other races, they could never hire someone "like that" to work and their business because the racist town they lived in wouldn't like it, and it would hurt business.
This person was totally against racism, unless it would hurt them financially.
Taking an ethical stand when it doesn't hurt you isn't taking an ethical stand.
If you think "the ethical thing" is to undermine governments which don't conform to our values... do you vote for the most hawkish candidate in every election? Are you joined up with the armed forces? Why not? America could bring the whole world to heel on "freedom & democracy," and yet even people who think of themselves as righteous, don't want to. Why?
Could it be that cost is actually a good argument?
Could it be that trying to impose your own system of morality on the whole world is not actually a moral act?
That's called "finding a justification for unethical behaviour".
"Well overall it's better if I do the unethical thing because when you think about it REALLY it's for the best- and yes, I'll make some extra money this way, but that's unrelated to why I've searched my soul for any reason to make this okay".
Google et al aren't denying information to oppressed people. Their governments are. The companies have to decide whether they will be complicit or not.
I'm from a developing nation who has a good tech career. I give a lot of credit to YouTube and Google for that. Denying that option to me is very costly. I'd rather have a censored version to nothing. It's just a pragmatic choice. However if Google is able to arm twist the government and remove the censor, nothing like it.
I've said this before, but if you only do the ethical thing when it doesn't cost you anything, you aren't actually an ethical person. You're just an opportunist.
Companies that say they have to do the unethical thing because otherwise shareholders will get mad or fire them, well they're doing the same thing, but it's avoiding personal costs (risking their cushy job) by doing the unethical thing. Doing the wrong thing because your boss will fire you if you don't doesn't mean you didn't do the wrong thing.
reply