I'm confident we only disagree on the threshold of injustice. Surely there is a point where exiting the market is the only moral thing to do? Or does the responsibility-proportional-to-power argument justify subjecting your business to literally any law?
To me, this law is past the threshold where it is morally acceptable to continue to do business in that nation. For you, that threshold is somewhere else, but I'm confident that you have one. Which of the following semi-hypothetical laws would it be acceptable for an American company to enforce, rather than ceasing business operations in the country?
1. Take-down of apps used to propagate what the state considers blasphemy
2. Take-down of apps used to advertise the democratic candidate of the party opposing the party in power
3. Requirement that the location data of all users of a certain set of apps, e.g. Grindr, be actively provided to state officials
4. Requirement that the location data of all users be provided to state officials with a court order
5. Same as 4, but without a court order
6. Requirement that the state be given the ability to arbitrarily adjust the prominence of web search results
I could go on, but you get the picture. I'll bet there are things on this list that you would be uncomfortable with your employer, or an American company whose services you used, helping to enforce. There are also probably some things on the list that you think are futile for individuals or companies to resists, even if you wish the law wasn't that way. I think that's is all there is to our disagreement: That we draw the line in a slightly different spot.
> Surely there is a point where exiting the market is the only moral thing to do?
Agreed.
But I don't think this case is it. Mainly because exiting does pretty much nothing to prevent Pakistani persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims. It's like you see a bully picking on a kid every day at the park and you just decide to go to a different park. Maybe you feel a little better about it yourself, but it doesn't help the kid.
This can be done on a larger scale, which will have a strong impact. I'm talking about economic sanctions via the UN or at least the US, where certain kinds of business are not allowed or restricted. In theory these kinds of sanctions could force countries to liberalize. But the reality isn't always that great. The general population ends up bearing the economic misery while the people in power, who make the decisions, do not. The general population tends to get resentful of the west, not adopt its values, and the people in power keep enjoying their power anyway. It seems these sanctions can turn countries inward, not outward, becoming more extreme and less liberal. North Korea, Iran, Russia.
> It's like you see a bully picking on a kid every day at the park and you just decide to go to a different park. Maybe you feel a little better about it yourself, but it doesn't help the kid.
I think this is a really good analogy if you flesh it out completely.
Eve is bullying Alice, and says that anybody who plays with Alice will be chased from the park. Alice asks to play with Bob, and now Bob has a choice to make.
Bob thinks, "If I play with Alice, it won't last long. Eve will force me from the park, and Alice won't get to play anyway. And I won't be able to play either! At least, not at this park."
So Bob decides the right thing to do is to continue playing with the other kids at the park, but never Alice.
I think Bob made the wrong call here. The alternative was not merely "deciding to go to a different park", it was standing up for Alice. The cause of his departure, and the fact that it was Eve that forced him, is important. It's not just Bob who "feels a little better about himself", it's Alice.
"exiting does pretty much nothing to prevent Pakistani persecution of Ahmadiyya Muslims"
Theybare direvtly enabling it in a way pakistani government would be unable to without them. And they are not going to give up smartphones if both Google and apple refuse.
Surely if hypothetical bazis asked Google and Apple for location of all jews, you would not be like "well, they can't loose business over this"
To me, this law is past the threshold where it is morally acceptable to continue to do business in that nation. For you, that threshold is somewhere else, but I'm confident that you have one. Which of the following semi-hypothetical laws would it be acceptable for an American company to enforce, rather than ceasing business operations in the country?
1. Take-down of apps used to propagate what the state considers blasphemy
2. Take-down of apps used to advertise the democratic candidate of the party opposing the party in power
3. Requirement that the location data of all users of a certain set of apps, e.g. Grindr, be actively provided to state officials
4. Requirement that the location data of all users be provided to state officials with a court order
5. Same as 4, but without a court order
6. Requirement that the state be given the ability to arbitrarily adjust the prominence of web search results
I could go on, but you get the picture. I'll bet there are things on this list that you would be uncomfortable with your employer, or an American company whose services you used, helping to enforce. There are also probably some things on the list that you think are futile for individuals or companies to resists, even if you wish the law wasn't that way. I think that's is all there is to our disagreement: That we draw the line in a slightly different spot.