I think the point is to scold Google for the harm they cause or fail to prevent. When the law is written so as to genuinely prevent harm (data protection, for ex) then I will scold those who don't follow it. When the law is written so as to be ineffective at best and harmful at worst, I will scold those who do follow it.
The point isn't to be consistent with regards to the law, as the law itself is not always either consistent nor "good".
... unless it is me that isn't understanding your own comment?
So we want Google and such to ignore laws when we think they should be ignored? Who decides which is which then?
Human Rights are higher than any law. Just because its law in China, does not mean it is correct to follow the law. It is not we decide which laws to follow, but it is universally in entire world the right thing to support Human Rights, regardless of any law.
I think the point is to scold Google for the harm they cause or fail to prevent. When the law is written so as to genuinely prevent harm (data protection, for ex) then I will scold those who don't follow it. When the law is written so as to be ineffective at best and harmful at worst, I will scold those who do follow it.
The point isn't to be consistent with regards to the law, as the law itself is not always either consistent nor "good".
... unless it is me that isn't understanding your own comment?
So we want Google and such to ignore laws when we think they should be ignored? Who decides which is which then?
Human Rights are higher than any law. Just because its law in China, does not mean it is correct to follow the law. It is not we decide which laws to follow, but it is universally in entire world the right thing to support Human Rights, regardless of any law.
The people? Democracy really isn't that hard.
Maybe we need a law to know which laws to follow.