[RyEgswuCsn]

Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there?

If yes, then Amazon is not "bowing", and it is The Guardian who is playing word games here. If not, then it would seem to imply that we are OK with western powers using their capital (instead of gunboats) to impose their ideology on other cultures in the world.

Now, one may argue that the customs and values of some countries are incompatible with those of the West and may even be considered "backward" to the point that western companies should completely withdraw from those markets because providing services to such markets equates to empowering those backward social values. That can be a fair assessment, but just remember not to blame them for "banning western companies" in the future.

[djohnston]

My feeling is that if you're going out of your way to promote an ideology/cultural value domestically (Happy Pride Month!, flags everywhere, etc), then yes you need to stick to your guns and not bow to the opposite influence.

If you're strictly in the business of making money, then by all means conduct your business but stfu about it.

[JackFr]

> if you're going out of your way to promote an ideology/cultural value domestically (Happy Pride Month!, flags everywhere, etc)

A cynic might even suspect the value signal is more about marketing than deeply held belief.

[colpabar]

It's always pretty funny to see companies like raytheon participate in pride parades, or companies that don't give any kind of realistic maternity leave talk about roe v wade.

[rayiner]

The trend of “we’ll pay for your abortion, but won’t make it tolerable to be a working mom” is extremely gross.

[lotsofpulp]

I do not see why it is gross. Employees have more utility if they get an abortion and less utility if they have to spend time out for parental leave.

If society wants to promote parenting, then society should pass laws about parental leave. Individual businesses have no obligation to reduce their competitiveness in the marketplace.

[dotnet00]

Why should the legal system have to step in to coerce people to behave like decent human beings?

Plenty of other businesses remain competitive while treating their employees like fellow humans who have their own lives to live.

By your reasoning, if anyone is able to abuse their freedom to do something immoral, it isn't that person or organization's fault, it's society's fault for allowing that to happen. Then why bother with freedom at all?

[alistairSH]

That's exactly why it's gross. And why nations should codify parental leave and similar policies. Failing that, it's a race to the bottom in any employment relationship where the employee doesn't have higher-than-average power.

[corobo]

> I do not see why it is gross

It's the whole bit about forgetting people are people. If you want robots go R&D some robots

> Employees have more utility if they get an abortion

Yea like that

[hulitu]

I think i read something like this on theonion.

[colpabar]

> Employees have more utility if they get an abortion

This is exactly what people find gross about it. This is like defending walmart for avoiding hiring full time employees so they don't have to provide health care because you think healthcare should be provided by the gov.

[hulitu]

It's like with the priests: do what they say not what they do.

[FerociousTimes]

Pinkwashing can be very annoying

[naniwaduni]

The trick is that they're not promoting an ideology/cultural value domestically; they're bowing to local influence everywhere, including domestically.

i.e. we should not take corporate Pride as sincere support, but as an indicator of the zeitgeist.

[joedissmeyer]

"...The trick is that they're not promoting an ideology/cultural value domestically; they're bowing to local influence everywhere, including domestically."

I think that this is the main issue. It is my opinion that this problem stems from the business and finance minded dogma of pushing efficiency, regardless of the long-term damage done to a brand/product/service, simply because in the short term it is _cheaper_ to do so. The long term damage is traded for short term gains.... kicking the bucket down the road if you will but doing long term damage to the business or institution overall.

In this particular context, lets take the example of Disney cutting/splicing/editing certain scenes from their films and shows in order to gain release approval in China. Instead of having one film product with a certain edit in the US, then another for China, then another for India, and so on, it is just _cheaper_ to have a single version edit of the film to release "everywhere". So in order to do this Disney has to appease a variety of censors and overview boards and make all changes in order to make a single film product where every governmental review board is happy. The pros is that you have a single version of the film thus making overall production costs cheaper. However the main con is that you may have specific ideological influence added to the product where it should or shouldn't be, or the tone or message of the film product might fundamentally change which breaks the premise/lesson, or the story is watered down essentially making the product meaningless, or the entertainment product might not be entertaining! The only real benefit in this case is that Disney still gets to release the film in as many markets as possible (thus meeting the rule of numbers for possible profit) but the customer starts to feel less connected to the brand so they start to lose interest and eventually abandon it. There are better examples of course. This is just one.

[djohnston]

Agreed, but then it's just valueless noise and I wish they'd stfu about it XD

[dirtyid]

Corporate ends up bowing / genuinely endorsing ideology / cultural value of their respective regional branches if they want to play ball. Issue is Western HQs bowing to domestic influence domestically, but said domestic voices are culturally trained to prosthelytize, to the point where western domestic zeitgeist seeks to impose their values abroad. Meanwhile transnational branches are typically staffed prodominantly by locals/ regional expats who will clap back when HQ tries to impose incompatible foreign values. Lots of western educated MENA / South Asian folks who return to work in UAE because they get to live out comfortable conservative / traditional life styles. Ultimately that's the work force western companies have to deal with, people who grew up under systems that's not interested in importing US cultural wars. Both sides are sincere about their ideology and desire to make money, but they're simply different markets. Hard to swallow when western workers / market can't fathom those abroad are mostly interested in their goods/services and not values because decades of western trade politics tied trade to values promotion.

[JumpCrisscross]

> remember not to blame them for "banning western companies" in the future

American companies are banned from paying foreign bribes. They’re not given a free pass with suporting genocide or terrorism, regardless of where it happens, even if that’s the law or custom somewhere else.

If we place domestic profits over sex trafficking or death penalties for gay people, so long as it’s there not here, then fine, let’s live with that sociopathy. It’s an abysmal moral space to occupy, but I also can’t argue with putting food on one’s table.

[toolz]

It's quite a stretch to go from banning LGBT searches to death penalties for those same people. The west bans information all the time that it deems dangerous, our value system is just different.

I would argue our value system is vastly superior, but I would never demand someone take my values as their own.

[JumpCrisscross]

> quite a stretch to go from banning LGBT searches to death penalties for those same people

Fair enough. Would note that the death penalty, alongside torture and chemical castration, are sanctioned punishments for being gay in the UAE [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Ar...

[zmgsabst]

I’d just like them to pick a lane:

- sociopathic corporation, profits above people… and stop pushing rainbow symbols all month domestically

- actually find your backbone and push rainbows globally

I think customers should refuse to tolerate the abuser mentality of corporations screaming at people who already agree about “gay rights” while refusing to actually stand up for them globally.

[JumpCrisscross]

> customers should refuse to tolerate the abuser mentality of corporations

Boycotts work when they’re deep, acute and with agreement on the solution that will lift it. Boycotts won’t do anything here. This requires legislation.

[zmgsabst]

I was thinking shareholder lawsuits against, eg, Disney or Amazon who appear to have lost a substantial amount of market value while focusing on “woke” over success.

[yakubin]

> Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there?

They may do that, but then playing a champion of the opposing values when it's convenient (pride month in the western world) is hypocrisy and it should be pointed out. If they didn't have an LGBTQ-based PR campaign in the West, then this move wouldn't merit a mention. Alas, it does.

[hef19898]

Personally, I think corporations have to respect the laws in all the markets they are operating in, no exceptions. If those laws are contradictory, well international corps are pretty good in using any loop holes, so they gonna figure it out. And if laws in some markets contradict basic values of a company, well, you can always not operate in said market. I'd love if companies would do that. That companies don't is a major way non-sanctioned totalitarian regimes can circumvent western democratic values.

In a way the world was easier during the cold war, good and bad was clearly distinguished, human rights didn't matter in the public opinion as log it was "our" guys doing the violations and things like LGBTQ, minority and women rights were a mere fringe phenomenon in West anyway. I like today's environment better.

[naniwaduni]

"circumvent" makes it sound like they're not taking the straight-line path and ignoring western democratic values and getting away with it

[hef19898]

They are doing both, aren't they?

[imachine1980_]

I think the take here is different, accept other culture is different to discriminate against some person, i'm again anti Islamic comments, also i'm not in favor of discrimination of LGBT+ people, jews,black, rusian etc. the question is here is we are in favor of corporation who value more market penetration than ethics standards, i'm against the neoliberal idea that corporation aren't ideological organization, i feel this premise in itself is ideological,and is use to push out criticism of their actions.

[bmitc]

I think it's a spectrum. When adjusting to local culture in a more colloquial manner, e.g., like what McDonald's and KFC do with their food in places like China, I think that is fine. However, when it comes to supporting and enabling ideology and policies that directly conflict with the values of the country that company is headquartered in and actually most of the developed world, then I think it's a national security issue. Because then, customers in the host country and the company itself are directly funding the conflicting ideology.

People not liking to eat cheese or beef or rice porridge is different than human rights issues. In general, I am not a fan of pushing or maintaining an ideology over another when it comes to economic and other such policies, but when it comes to human rights violations, I don't think that's something that should be bowed to.

[azth]

Who dictates "human rights"?

[bmitc]

Most human rights seem pretty universal to me and really not that hard to determine, but at the end, it's the country that hosts the company, isn't it?

[azth]

That's a hand wavy answer that won't hold up to scrutiny. In some cultures, human sacrifice was permitted and seen as normal and acceptable. I think you would consider that a violation of human rights, but based on what?

I agree that companies should be forced to abide by the local laws and norms.

[bmitc]

I think the keyword there is “some”. Extreme edge cases matter in things like mathematics, but they rarely make a compelling argument for fringe socioeconomic policies or viewpoints or enumerating human rights.

For my own sentiment, referenced as hand wavy, it is not that hard to let people do what they want with their own life as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon others’ rights. Is that really that difficult of a rubric to follow?

For the original question, I already answered that explicitly.

[azth]

Let's look at that notion deeper. Are you able to claim that consenting adults engaging in sexual acts together in an uncontrolled manner (i.e. no marriage contract) is not hurting others? What about consenting teens with each other? I think you'll see that widespread STD's, abortions, teen pregnancies, single parent (especially single mother) families, and the emotion baggage that comes with these easy sexual relationships disagrees with you.

Secondly, what or who is your authority that people doing what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone is a valid generalization to make for all actions?

[FerociousTimes]

> Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there?

Not local customs and values but local laws and regulations in their respective jurisdiction because even in these seemingly mono-cultural places, there's still variety and diversity when it comes to traditions and conventions.

[hulitu]

> Do people agree that corporations should respect the customs and values of the local people when operating their business there?

No, definitely no. Corporations (especially american ones) know better. Corporations don't respect customs they respect growing value. /s

[boopmaster]

Let me google that for you. Wait, some search results were removed due to DMCA claims. All the stones I had to throw at this are apparently censored here in the good ole USA.

[beej71]

Amazon doesn't respect any customs or values of any culture. They've done the calculus here that they will make more money by doing this than by not doing it.

[31835843]

> If not, then it would seem to imply that we are OK with western powers using their capital (instead of gunboats) to impose their ideology on other cultures in the world.

“impose their ideology” is a disingenuous frame for this situation. They are censoring search results. As in, the customer, who Amazon makes money off by showing them what they want, is not being shown items that relate to what they searched for.

That’s not a pop-up that says “Muhammad was bisexual.”

In any case, cultural relativism is a liberal cop-out. American companies should use their capital to promote American values.

[josephg]

> American companies should use their capital to promote American values

Like how Facebook bans all nudity, even in countries where nudity is much less of a big deal (eg Germany)? Or apple has a blanket ban on “adult” apps in their App Store, because in America violence is ok but sex is bad?

I hear what you’re saying, but as an Australian, exported American cultural values can be pretty odious too. I don’t have any simple answers though.

[31835843]

I wouldn’t consider those “American values,” except in the sense that those companies are trying to protect their interests by having a platform that appeals to a wide variety of people.

Which, come to think of it, is itself a distinct value: compromise of free expression for money.

You have a good point here.

[nequo]

> cultural relativism is a liberal cop-out

I'm confused about what makes it liberal.

[JackFr]

But Americans celebrate tolerance and diversity of ideas, that is unless you actually disagree with us.

[31835843]

Tolerance and diversity are not absolute.

[patrick451]

This is such a cop out. If you only tolerate things that don't offend you, that doesn't make you tolerant because you're not tolerating anything.

[dahfizz]

Even the "tolerant" party of US politics preaches "intolerance of intolerance".

[nemothekid]

>American companies should use their capital to promote American values.

You can hardly argue that LGBT acceptance is an American value; our Supreme Court just hinted at repealing it.

[meatsauce]

Explain how

[waffleiron]

> They are censoring search results. As in, the customer, who Amazon makes money off by showing them what they want, is not being shown items that relate to what they searched for.

But that happens in the US too, if I want to ISIS's propaganda magazine on Amazon is it censorship that I can't find those? If I look for porn on youtube, is it censorship I can't find it?

[pas]

youtube doesn't want to. there's plenty of porn sites in the US. there's plenty of money in the porn industry too.

sure, there's a social stigma. but if google/youtube/alphabet wanted to (as in they think there's enough money to be made in that sector) they would do it.

US conservatism does interfere with a lot of personal things (cough), but at least the current status quo is that it does not want to restrict selling data. (though there's a big think-of-the-children scare, and with the same sustained push for banning this or that this could change eventually)

[smileybarry]

There's a world of a difference between pride, ISIS, and porn.

[waffleiron]

I am not arguing that they are the same, have a look at what I quoted. This is really annoying me with HN, people looking for an easy dismissal of an argument instead of trying to actually talk about the underlying point.

The point that I am trying to make is that the argument I quoted doesn't work, because we already have situations where someone might look for something and can't find it.

I am not agreeing this is good, I am not saying it's the same, I am just trying to interact with a specific argument. This is a complex topic about cultural differences and ethics, let's try to stay curious and not just give shallow dismissals.

[smileybarry]

The examples you used for that point are bad because they come off as false equivalence, and “porn on YouTube” (age rating) and “ISIS books on Amazon” (murder) already have very legitimate justifications. Banning pride can be just a shirt with the word “gay”, and that’s absurd without needing an explanation.

[meatsauce]

No, we, the alphabet mafia, demand total fealty ...or else.

[MomoXenosaga]

No, only the law. UAE customs and values on LGBTQ will collapse naturally by the outside pressure of superior Western culture.

[baisq]

Yeah, let's see that superiority when the US supremacy breaks down. Because the only way that the Western culture has prevailed this century is through bloodshed.

[digitalsushi]

There must be some western culture that has been successful because it is what humans naturally gravitate towards.

[xcambar]

Funny how one might think that what is prevalent worldwide in this era looks like a natural trend.

To a goldfish in an aquarium, it is also very natural that food appears from above, as per magic.

[tcmart14]

The issue is, you can go back to any form of governance and social hierarchy throughout history and find groups of people defending it as what humans "naturally want." People have done this with feudalism and whatever came before.

[JackFr]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history

[baisq]

This is a very narrow view of the issue. There have been lots of different successful cultures throughout history and they were different in significant ways. Western culture is the one that you are currently living through. The rest of cultures of the past probably also thought they were the best and would last forever.

[digitalsushi]

It took me 7 hours to realize that my parent reply is lexically ambiguous and poorly written. I own it, I am full of covid and operating as well as everyone told me:

My intention was to indicate at least a fraction:

There must be /some/ western culture that has been successful because it [that portion] is what humans naturally gravitate towards.

My accident was to imply that western culture has been wholly successful:

There must be some-western-culture that has been successful because it [all of it] is what humans naturally gravitate towards.

Sorry to any readers in the future, I deserve the replies I got today in this context.

[azth]

Logical fallacy, just because humans naturally gravitate towards something does not make it right. Humans gravitate toward feeling good (drugs), and we see how that turns out for example.

[JKCalhoun]

We seem in fact to gravitate to tribalism if my (admittedly shallow) grasp of history is worth anything.

[s1artibartfast]

Muslim culture is probably the most successful culture if you are looking at growth over the last 1000 years or so.