But then you're saying that you think that companies like Google are morally equipped to be able to determine this law better than states would, which I think is where you lose me. Legal systems are also imperfect but at least there is oversight and (at least symbolic) input from citizens.
Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future?
And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.
Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"?
> For example, in my morals
But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree.
Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
This whole argument is ludicrous. In the US, it would be unconstitutional for the president to censor protest. So if your argument is that laws are morality, how do you square the conflict between these two nation's laws?
Re: Edit >And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
Not if dissent has been crushed.
My point was explicitly that the laws of a society catch up but they are inherently almost always behind the morality of that society. What you're describing is not only this delay but also the fact that you're talking about 2 different societies. And when the system above doesn't work it's not a democracy.
> And wouldn't laws in a democracy
> Not if dissent has been crushed.
If a democracy crushes dissent it's either not a democracy or the views of the majority demand that dissent be crushed. Again, the point was that if society overall changes it's views on morality of things, laws tend to eventually follow. Either by force (overthrowing the oppressive regime) or by vote. Take the examples of race and sexuality to see how laws were changes as the views of society changed.
Google clearly has an interest in circumventing U.S. cultural norms (for financial and ideological profit), and the best way to do it is to convince some number of Americans that they're suppressing the "bad people" and promoting the "good people".
This time around, the useful dupes are mostly authoritarian progressives. Over time, the authoritarian progressives will make the association in the other direction: they will begin to believe that whoever Google suppresses must be a "bad person".
This is absolutely not clear at all.
For example, if I owned a hypothetical corporation whose goal was to provide tools for people in harsh political climates to utilize democratic means of resistance against their government, who is it for to decide whether or not giving this technology to, say, the people of Hong Kong is the right thing?
Is it China's? Haha, no. It's mine. It's my decision.
This is another example of generalization to the point of harm. Not all corporations are equal. They are just groups of people with shared goals.
In this particular situation, the protestors are demanding free elections, exactly what would give the government legitimacy. Seems to me the easiest policy to justify would be for corporations to support democratic governments and movements, and ignore the demands of despots.
I don't think it's outrageous at all to think Google's determinations are more reasonable than those of Russia.
It's only when you start smudge out Russia, pluralizing it into "states" generally, that it becomes a harder question. And I personally think this move blurs the focus of conversation, and degrades it. As jayd16 and other commenters are pointing out, this conversation is getting muddied with slippery-slopeism.
But you're also muddying a clear case of free speech, that Americans find a basic human right with, slippery-slopeism.
