81–90 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed countries.
Saudi Arabia is 100% backed by Israel and Israel controls the media and most politicians through AIPAC and so on, so good luck with that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't care if you watch it, they care if people in Saudi Arabia watch it.
That's only partially true, in a world so communicated a lot of people are going to contact their friends living in Saudi Arabia and tell them what they think about the film, a lot will see this news on reddit or elsewhere and realize its being censored.
This is the only natural conclusion in a world where sovereign countries legislate the internet according to their values and tech companies follow local laws. Regulatory backlash isn't always going to be GDPR. Sometimes it's going to be this.
Let's also remember "regulatory backlash" can mean something that threatens the personal safety and freedom of a company's employees in that country. When talking about censorship in these places, we should consider the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance.
Given recent events vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that something a whole lot worse than being 'disappeared' happens to you. I hear the authorities there are not above using chainsaws to resolve the differences they might have with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't care if you watch it, they care if people in Saudi Arabia watch it.
I’m sure they care more than that. Global opinion matters, especially if it can influence policy makers, particularly citizens in the western developed countries.
Not so sure about this?
Reality is, MBS can do whatever he wants, global opinion or no global opinion. That's been made pretty clear recently.
I mean really, who's gonna stop him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not unreasonable for a sovereign country to exercise control over legal media in its territory. It might not be just, or fair, for residents of that country, but it is reasonable.
A government exercising control over the media in its country is a very clear-cut violation of the value of free-speech. The moral question is whether American companies should help foreign governments shut down free-speech. Just like google in China. And the consensus seems to be "No."
simillary UK censor HBO's Last Week Tonight show when it reports about uk parliament https://theweek.com/speedreads/778214/john-oliver-fiendish-p...
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's also remember "regulatory backlash" can mean something that threatens the personal safety and freedom of a company's employees in that country. When talking about censorship in these places, we should consider the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance.
> the ethical ramifications of possibly getting someone 'disappeared' for non-compliance... Given recent events vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure that something a whole lot worse than being 'disappeared' happens to you. I hear the authorities there are not above using chainsaws to resolve the differences they might have with you.
Put another way, is it better if they feed you an exceptional mean before they kill you?
In the end, focusing on the how's instead of the why and the concrete fact they did is just a way for others to to manipulate people into feeling one way or another (or more of either) instead of just taking the hard line that it's unacceptable in any and every form.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not accusing you of manipulating people, just stating that it's just a common tactic in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the simplest explanation is likely the right one: the writing is on the wall for oil in this century. Tech is a sensible investment.
I don’t think oil is going anywhere any time soon. Even if vehicles were suddenly completely electric in 20 years and all power generation no longer required fossil fuels, we still have things like jet fuel, asphalt, and plastics that require petroleum. Not saying the saudis aren’t forward thinking about what to do when demand decreases, but so many folks do believe that oil = cars and going electric means we don’t n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the simplest explanation is likely the right one: the writing is on the wall for oil in this century. Tech is a sensible investment.
I don’t think oil is going anywhere any time soon. Even if vehicles were suddenly completely electric in 20 years and all power generation no longer required fossil fuels, we still have things like jet fuel, asphalt, and plastics that require petroleum. Not saying the saudis aren’t forward thinking about what to do when demand decreases, but so many folks do believe that oil = cars and going electric means we don’t n…