[terminus]

> If we enforce some morals and not others in our app stores, who exactly do we choose as the arbiters of morality? U.S. public opinion? Chinese public opinion? Maybe the U.N?

I agree that not every situation is this easy to decide but this one -- women as chattel -- seems rather staightforward.

Corporations claim free speech rights (via corporate personhood) all the time. Not using those rights in this case seems to be quite a statement.

[Pristina]

>seems rather staightforward.

So your entire argument is based on your personal subjective valuation that it is straightforward.

The idea that a homosexual should be thrown from a bridge onto an oncoming train is as straightforward to a good many people as this is to you.

What you are invoking here is really 'US public opinion' or its related 'western world public opinion' circa. 2019.

If this is basically all the substance of your argument, then your position is no better than the moslem over there that thinks blasphemer should be beheaded.

[terminus]

Are you seriously saying that there are two sides to the whether women are chattel or not?

What's funny is that your specious analogies try to equate this argument -- for more freedom for the Saudi women -- to others where people's freedoms are being restricted.

Might I suggest you have another go at remedial logic.