This seems to run counter to the idea that Google wants to promote democracy. Hell or high water, if a country has stifling civil liberties, a company with real principles in cultivating discourse and democracy would stick to their guns regardless of local laws.
In this case, it looks like a simple case of complying with local laws to continue to growing their bottom line. It’s why we can’t believe Silicon Valley when they say they want to cultivate discourse and democracy. They don’t. They want to make money. When the two coincide with one another, that’s great. When they don’t, profit is more important than freedom. That’s why we can’t trust private enterprises to act in the best interests of society.
You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them. They are a sovereign country and have the right to establish whatever laws they want within their territory.
I'm actually not advocating breaking a country's laws or their sovereignty. What I was trying to argue (and I probably didn't do a good job) is that trusting a for-profit company to serve the general welfare and public good is a fool's errand. This is further proof that companies like Google only care about furthering conversations insofar as to make money.
I completely agree with you there, and I'm sorry if my comment came across as aggressive. What I'm surprised by though, is that anyone thinks corporations are anything but a way to make money.
Does anyone really believe they care about serving the general welfare? It's money first, "don't be evil" second, for all for-profit corporations. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just what a corporation is for.
It appears to me that a lot of people have shifted their trust to private corporations from government entities. Namely because we've stopped holding our elected officials accountable. There should be and always will be a struggle between for-profit ventures and the general welfare but if we don't have trust in democratic institutions, we'll continue ceding power to for-profit ventures.
> You're advocating for breaking a country's laws. What makes Russia's laws worth less than any other country's? Whether you agree or not with them, you have to respect them.
No, you don't. Websites are international, and Google could always refuse to comply. They run the risk of being blocked, but that might be preferable to complying with an immoral or unjust law.
> They are a sovereign country and have the right to establish whatever laws they want within their territory.
No. Do you think "sovereign countries" have a right to establish laws implementing the genocide of a minority population? To use torture freely? To murder or imprison people for criticizing the government? To absolutely defer to sovereignty is to either stand by while injustices large and small are inflicted on others, or even worse join in and be complicit in the injustice.
Your comparison only works because we now know that the Nazis committed horrific deeds. We didn't know about the holocaust until the early 1940s. Until then, they were just another government to do business with.
I would choose not to do business with Nazi Germany. If I'm running a business and don't agree with their laws, I can choose not to do business there. If I'm choosing to do business there, I'm choosing to respect their laws. It's that simple - it's just like an individual immigrating to a country.
Doing business there, and breaking their laws, isn't right no matter what you think of them.
Out of curiosity, how'd you define "doing business there" in a borderless Internet? Surely Google servers remain in the USA? Would you rely on imperfect client location determination?
The article is about Google pulling down Russian ads, paid for by Russians. It is clear that Google is doing business with people in Russia. This isn't about visitors to a website, which I agree is an entirely different situation.
Don't accuse me of being a Russian shill, I'm the opposite. But isn't this a local law in many countries?
"The laws prohibit political campaigning within 24 hours of an official poll."
We have a similar law in most of Canada, I think. No advertising just before Election Day. In some provinces, the blackout includes the day before an election (Ontario, for example).
Interesting that for national elections, Canada doesn't allow advertising on Election Day itself, but specifically exempts internet ads that were placed before Election Day. So if you uploaded a video to youtube before the blackout, you don't have to remove it.
The question here is whether Google also removed other Russian party ads from YouTube as well.
In this case, it looks like a simple case of complying with local laws to continue to growing their bottom line. It’s why we can’t believe Silicon Valley when they say they want to cultivate discourse and democracy. They don’t. They want to make money. When the two coincide with one another, that’s great. When they don’t, profit is more important than freedom. That’s why we can’t trust private enterprises to act in the best interests of society.