[macspoofing]

>There is a difference between not having a choice

You have no choice?

>and justifying unethical behavior.

I get it. It's not unethical when you engage in commerce with a regime you find unethical, or when you buy from all the other companies that manufacture their goods in China ... but it's unethical if Google doesn't want to ignore 1.4 billion people?

>The fact that this is the only sentence you've touched speaks for itself.

As opposed to the other three snide and arrogant sentences? If you'd like a good-faith discussion please lead by example.

[xvector]

> It's not unethical when you engage in commerce with a regime you find unethical or when you buy from all the other companies that manufacture their goods in China

Who says it's not unethical? Why are you putting words in peoples' mouths?

On one hand you talk about having a good-faith discussion but then you go ahead and base your argument off of words you've put in someone else's mouth.

> but it's unethical if Google doesn't want to ignore 1.4 billion people?

Most people find corruption of data far worse than the absence of data. I'd rather not be told anything than be told a lie.

[macspoofing]

>Who says it's not unethical? Why are you putting words in peoples' mouths?

OK. I guess I made the reasonable assumption that buying Chinese goods or buying goods from companies that do business in Chinese is not intrinsically unethical since it is something is completely pervasive. The fact that neither the public, nor democratic governments, nor any companies have any qualms

So I'm sorry if I stumbled upon a hypocrite who hates himself for engaging in the unethical action of living in a modern globalized society.

>On one hand you talk about having a good-faith discussion

I sure do and still do. You tell me, was OP's first comment a good-faith start to a discussion? If not, why are you hassling me? Because you agree with OP - that's the standard here?

>Most people find corruption of data far worse than the absence of data.

Got stats for that? Or are we projecting how we feel on the rest of the world.

But to rephrase it, do you think Chinese citizens should have the option to use the same products that their peers in other countries do? The actual point I made however had a different focus, mainly - do you think a company who competes with other companies can just ignore a market of 1.4 billion people when none of their other competitors do? Companies go bankrupt all the time. Even a multinational Fortune 100 company will have a life expectancy of 40-50 years. So the entire point was: - No western government hasn't taken steps to isolate this 'unethical' regime. - The public is perfectly fine with travelling to China, buying from China, doing business with companies who do business in China. - All of Google's competitors are in China.

But Google is evil because they only lasted 8 years of their self-imposed exile (and if you remember, their leaving China was precipitated by Chinese hacking attack against their servers).

[mocae]

> You have no choice?

Turn your mouse around. Where is it made? This is true since it was a joke in the 90s.

> I get it. It's not unethical when you engage in commerce with a regime you find unethical, or when you buy from all the other companies that manufacture their goods in China ... but it's unethical if Google doesn't want to ignore 1.4 billion people?

I never said it's not unethical. You say that I say that. Which is quite weak. I hope this is the result of you realizing what you did and now trying to dig yourself out by shifting blame to others.