How much oversight and input do you think citizens have in Russia? Seems like in this particular case, their government is directly opposing the citizens who, in theory, would provide that oversight.
That is true, but it's still not for corporations to decide. I hate the system they have imposed on them but that still doesn't give me the right to decide what's right and wrong. Same goes with China. If Google doesn't like it then they can always exert their influence in other ways.
Corporations can decide whatever they wish and face the appropriate consequences.
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.
I'm having trouble thinking why an undemocratic government would have any more of a right to decide. We don't believe in the divine right of kings anymore.
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.
Comments
How much oversight and input do you think citizens have in Russia? Seems like in this particular case, their government is directly opposing the citizens who, in theory, would provide that oversight.
That is true, but it's still not for corporations to decide. I hate the system they have imposed on them but that still doesn't give me the right to decide what's right and wrong. Same goes with China. If Google doesn't like it then they can always exert their influence in other ways.
Corporations can decide whatever they wish and face the appropriate consequences.
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.
I'm having trouble thinking why an undemocratic government would have any more of a right to decide. We don't believe in the divine right of kings anymore.
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.