Hacker News Reader

Comment by slowday | Hacker News Reader

> Using our influence over Apple and Google to project power against Saudi Arabia and try to force them to agree to different moral norms is in stark contrast to the idea of sovereignty and signals to everyone else that that kind of behaviour is ok.

On the other hand, not using our influence over Apple and Google to project power against Saudi Arabia and try to force them to agree to different moral norms signals that their norms (and the behaviour they cause and justify) are ok. And that's how you get millions of women horribly mistreated.

Sovereignty may be a great concept, but not when you use it to justify and normalize abuse. I feel like that should be condemned and not tolerated under any circumstances.

View on HN

How do we draw the line in what norms to enforce? And who determines that those norms are actually better than the ones in place? It seems like this would be a great way for multinational corporations to become cultural and moral enforcers, which causes bad incentives to influence people towards consumption above all else.

Doesn't take rocket science. Are people being directly harmed by this product ? The answer in this case is clearly yes. Take down the app immediately.

Freedom of speech is one thing. This app is _specifically_ created to harm women who want refuge.

I highly suspect "directly harmed" is a moral judgement, not an objective measure.

If female genital mutilation "direct harm"? If yes, does the same apply to circumcision of males? If yes, is denying jewish people a religious practise (and thus potentially entry to heaven) "direct harm"? Different people will answer this very differently, even in the same country and culture.

More applicable to this case: Is it ok for parents to see where their children are? Is ist ok for parents to get an alert when their children cross a geofence? If in a culture the husband is viewed as the guardian of his wife, is it ok if the husband uses the same app for his wife?

Note that I don't endorse any of these things, I'm simply saying that "are people being directly harmed by this product" is sometimes a deep philosophical or psychological question that is arguably harder than rocket science.

Living in constant fear because of your gender and where you were born is direct harm. Being controlled by the opposite gender is a direct harm. Not being able to become educated because you are female is a direct harm to them AND men(and those in between).

But in this case why stop half way? Why sell them a phone (the OS) in the first place? Isn’t this (just like the app) condoning the behavior? Isn’t being their ally the same? Doing business with them in general?

Protesting the immoral behavior only by means that don’t really hurt your own bottom line is not actually doing much except cement the hypocrisy.

These questions are easy to answer.

If female genital mutilation "direct harm"? Yes.

does the same apply to circumcision of males? Not to the same extent, because the harm is less - despite using the same word, cutting off the foreskin is objectively less harmful than cutting off the clitoris.

However, this is an area where the prevailing opinion is shifting as we speak. Male circumcision used to be normal (in the US), now it's considered in most polite circles to be somewhere between antiquated and barbaric. The loudest argument in favor seems to be "it's my religious tradition!" but ask the mormons how that argument faired WRT plural marriage and excluding blacks. Public opinion shifts slowly but it's not hard to imagine a future where even religion doesn't cut it as an excuse for cutting off bits of a baby's junk. We may revisit this question in a few more decades.

Is it ok for parents to see where their children are? Yes. Parents in every modern society are granted extremely broad powers over their children.

If in a culture the husband is viewed as the guardian of his wife, is it ok if the husband uses the same app for his wife? No. Women are not property. That's the moral judgement of modern society. Cultures which violate this moral judgement should do so without our help.

These are not thorny issues or deeply philosophical problems.

That description glosses over the context and compare female circumcision that is conducted in one area of the world with male circumcision of a complete different area of the world, creating the conclusion that whats matter is what bit get cut off.

If we look at African culture, which is the most common place for female circumcision, we find that male circumcision is quite different from what people might expect in both execution and purpose. The boys are much older, and the ritual is done in part to test the "warriors" ability to withstand pain. A boy who cries out in pain brings great dishonor to his family, and of course no sedative is applied. It is ritualized torture with religious attributes.

This does not make US and EU style of male circumcision more moral, but it does mean that when you say that "the harm is less" with circumcision of males, what we are saying is that ritualized torture is not as bad as cutting off the clitoris. I object to that. male circumcision in nations that practice female circumcision is one of the worst form of barbaric acts one human can do to an other human, and for the worst reasons.

There are books on direct harm, and robots who force you to quit smoking.

I simultaneously feel like, in this particular case, neither are the corporations themselves the cultural and moral enforcers, nor is deciding on where to draw the line on which norms to enforce relevant.

The former because the rights groups which criticize the corporations are the ones driving the supposed change and enforcing their own morality. Rights groups are probably better moral arbiters than corporations, on account of there being less conflict of interest. And the latter because, while the line can definitely be very hard to trace in various, more ambiguous situations, I really don't think this specific case is one of those. It feels like a slippery slope argument to me, specifically: "If we enforce this, what else are we going to end up enforcing?"

For better or worse multinational corporations are already widely adapting that role. See: the “transgender bathroom bill” mess where many corporations dropped their support for the state in a concentrated effort to get the bill repealed. Even if the corp’s leadership is not agitating in such a way, then its employees probably are in the shape of Employee Resource Groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com