The GP said, "in a way that doesn't assume your worldview is the universal position ... everyone must adhere to". Your response still assumes that universality.
Similar concept but different issue: Do you think women should have equal rights as men? Do you think that should be universal? Or do you think it is OK for some jurisdictions to declare them the property of their husbands?
What I think is irrelevant. The question why the US hasn't yet ratified the Equal Rights Amendment that would guarantee that "women have equal rights" is also irrelevant (hint: women opposed that).
The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states.
I thought we were talking about Amazon, not a state.
But let's say we were talking about a state, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be the North Star that we hold states accountable to (incl. the United States of America).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...
Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time.
I mean the argument is “homosexuality and being trans are real observable phenomena in the human species across history and cultures and bringing harm to groups of people based on factors they cannot change is morally wrong.”
Skipping that, Amazon is not taking part in any genocide - they agreed to "restrict LGBT search results" in accordance with the local laws (however backward these may seem to you — and me). In the US, Amazon is not selling Mein Kampf (in accordance with the local laws). In China, Amazon wouldn't sell Tiananmen square memorabilia (in accordance with the local laws). In Europe, Amazon wouldn't sell pornography (in accordance with the local laws).
People in this thread think I’m surprised by this news, or they try to explain why we should expect this from Amazon. I don’t care about any of that. At the end of the day, someone or some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group. That’s fucked up.
Except for the fact that you agree with one ('cos it's "a good thing") and disagree with the other ('cos it's "a bad thing"), what are these differences?
> some people made the call to continue making a buck by empowering a homophobic and dangerous group.
For an LGBT person, it's better to be in the US than in the UAE [0][1].
If you want that to change in the short run, you're out of luck — it's not realistic to assume it will change soon.
If you want that to change in the long run, the way to do that is to have more contact (including trade) with the UAE.
[0] Mind you, it's better still to be LGBT in the UAE than in Afghanistan or Iran!
[1] For a sick child from a poor family who needs lots and lots of healthcare, it's the opposite.
So you amend the rule to be “you follow local laws that harm vulnerable classes of people as long as it’s just a little harm … as a treat” and it sounds ridiculous.
