Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So all local law should be followed by internet companies? Lets say there's a political group that's anonymous but uses facebook. Turkey's PM signs an executive order telling Facebook to give up their identities and FB, by your argument, is "forced" to comply. Now this hypothetical horrible regime has information it needs to perform a politically motivated arrest.

All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing. Zuck's recent catering to autocratic, theocratic, and dictator-led regimes is concerning. You can't have this platform of "give us all your personal info for social sharing - its fun and safe" at the same time you're at the beck and call of every horrible regime.

Marketshare vs ethics is a thorny issue, but I hope this is a wake-up call to those in countries with unfriendly governments about using US web based services. We will sell you out and not care one wit. We are not an idealistic people. The truth here is that the west is enabling these terrible regimes, the same way Cisco largely built the Great Firewall of China. I don't think its fair or wise to just throw our hands in the air and say, "Meh, local law" as we build oppression machines.

Its also amusing how incredibly statist libertarians become when it comes to following the law, regardless of its merit. I guess protest and ideals are for leftists only. This also has me greatly concerned about the future of the Oculus Rift. If we're going to be so friendly with censorship, what does that say about the future of things like the fabled metaverse? Can my friend from Turkey visit my home in the metaverse if I have "wrong" materials inside of it? Will I need to give Zuck read/write access to all my virtual things to make sure no theocrat in Turkey is being offended?

Its sad that geekdom, in general, has shifted from an Abbie Hoffman style "screw the man" to a very conservative "follow the man" as we realized we could make a lot of money from bits and bytes. Its weird seeing people who just a few years ago were completely outraged at the Bush administration, but seem to have no problem with Erdogan. As if Erdogan's party speaks for all Turks the same way Bush hypothetically spoke for all Americans.

Regardless, its a sad day for the millions in Turkey still fighting for their secular values.



"All this gen-y moral relativism is pretty depressing."

I am shocked by the massive irony of me saying "Follow Law" and you turning around and accusing me of moral relativism.

Stop using buzzwords you don't understand! If you wish to ignore the laws of a land based on your subjective judgement of them, then you are the ethically relative, not me.

Even Jesus was outspoken about rendering unto Ceasar, among other phrases supporting the idea that local government should be respected. There is NOTHING morally relative about following local law, it is a tenant that is literally enshrined in most major religions and moral systems that have survived for millennia.

The ability of people to reject basic social ethics that have existed since near pre-history using trendy buzzwords is pretty depressing.

You honestly think "follow local laws" is gen-y? That no society on earth ever insisted you follow their local law until millennials came around?

How depressing that one of the most basic tenets of civilized society, respecting local law, is now considered "moral relativism" and is blamed on the youth of today.


"Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others."

So "Follow the local Law" seems to me to be the very definition of moral relativism.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: