[manigandham]

Yes. It's called war. What's confusing here? If a citizen of a nation thinks that another nation is not behaving as they would like (whichever country or whatever behavior that is), the proper channels to enact change are through government action, either diplomatic or militarized.

Asking a private corporation to be international police is not good for anyone, as well intentioned as it may seem.

[jaakl]

Military (or state in general) may have other, softer and more covert means of influencing other countries besides war, like “persuading” home corporations to act on their behalf. Thats not unheard of nowadays

[manigandham]

Sure, even more of a reason why companies should not be in the business of politics on either side.

[smsm42]

War is an ultimate and extremely costly measure. Just as inter-personal violence should be reserved for extreme cases - if you don't like a mayor in your city, you vote against him, campaign against him, write letters, go to protests - but you do not assassinate him. The same way, inter-national war is a measure of last resort and should not be resorted to due to mere disagreement about cultural norms and such.

> Asking a private corporation to be international police

This implies only police can and does enforce cultural and moral norms. This is the exact opposite of the correct order of things - the police should be preventing or punishing crimes, like theft, robbery, rape, murder, etc. - and people themselves - individually or in organized groups, like companies, NGOs, voluntary societies, etc. - should be creating and enforcing moral norms. You can not just delegate this to "the police", being it national or international.

Thus, asking Amazon to take part in helping to create an international norm of upholding free speech is reasonable. And their refusal is morally despicable.

[manigandham]

Yea, that's why I said: "government action, either diplomatic or militarized". Any reasonable person will choose diplomacy first.

Nobody is talking about cultural norms here. The story is about Signal being used to help those in oppressive societies with active censorship, not some differing cultures. And "police" is a form of expression, not literally a police department.

Asking Amazon to do anything political is absurd because it's a corporation that should be focused on its paying customers, none of whom would appreciate unwillingly being affected by Signal intentionally breaking their terms of service. Do they suddenly not matter?

It's morally despicable to just expect and force others to help you in your causes, no matter how noble (you think) it is.

[latch]

You say "proper" but what you're describing (at least the military option) is a war of aggression. This is not only illegal (both internationally, and, for example, in US Law), but described as "the supreme international crime."

[manigandham]

It's an option, and if it comes to war then the legality of whether it should've been declared is usually not a priority. Also in the context of oppressive regimes, the "aggression" in this case wouldn't be unwarranted, nor is it unprecedented.

Regardless, what actually isn't proper is expecting major corporations to do police duty. That never ends well.

[latch]

A war of aggression has nothing to do with whether or not it was declared (in fact, declaring such a war is, by itself, considered a war of aggression and is illegal and is a war crime).

Are you sure you still feel that committing a war crime and doing what philosophers and statesmen and lawyers consider the "supreme" crime is really worse than "expecting major corporations to do police duty" ?

I think part of your argument is reasonable to a point that two people could, in good conscious and respectfully, disagree. Maybe governments are better suited to handle this (via what is known as soft power).

But as long as you take such an extreme position that cannot be defended (it's better to wage of war of aggression than to have amazon stand up for Signal), you're just commenting for yourself. No one is going to engage you in meaningful discussion, because even when it gets pointed out that you're advocating for a war crime, you can't even say "well ya, maybe that was a bit extreme."

[manigandham]

What? You've seemed to have lost all context here:

1) As noble as the cause may seem, it would be better for everyone if massive corporations just focused on business instead of politics. It's reasonable, predictable, and safer. Signal is not affected by this, it just means picking a better option than breaking terms of service.

2) The correct process for citizens of a country is through government diplomatic and military action, especially when concerning other foreign states. That's all I said, and another posted specifically asked about the military in which case the option is called war. This entire story is about oppressive powers, most of which are disabled through military action, so it's not a strange concept and nowhere is a war of aggression mentioned.

Perhaps take a step down from your moral high ground and try to comprehend the entire conversation before telling someone that they are advocating for war crimes, that would be much more helpful if you want a meaningful discussion.

[na85]

You're being very nonchalant about going to war to make things easier for Amazon.

I find that chilling.

[manigandham]

I find it surprising how these threads get so lost in a just a few posts.

What I said is that if someone has an issue with another country (oppressive or otherwise) then they should use political means to influence change through their (and foreign) governments. As the commenter specifically stated the military, war is how that change is done in that case.