Then why are people shitting over Google for attempting to created a censored search engine for China? I think the project was called Dragonfly.
Larry and Sergei were of the opinion that any information, even if censored, is better than no information at all.
> "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." [1]
They could have pulled out but they were idealistic and felt that their presence was one step towards making the world a better place. Well, that and
> The Google statement said the tradeoff for going against its basic principle of making the "world's information universally available and accessible" is gaining greater access to a quickly growing Chinese economy.
That's the general gist anyway. I forget the specifics but it's covered in a book called In The Plex[2]
[1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex
We just can't expect the foreign country to change their laws or the company to break those laws.
Maybe Google backed down because damage on the brand in US would be greater than the expected profits from China? Maybe they back down because employees went political and Google didn't want to lose them?
Or maybe they are simply afraid that these new abilities will come back home?
Legal and ethical are not the same thing - something can be legal and unethical, or illegal and ethical.
What about abortion? What about regulation on what goes into your body? What about blasphemy? What about ending your own life? What about pre-marital sex? What about changing your religion? What about drawing Muhammeds cartoon? What about many other things that are right or wrong depending on who you ask?
In countries with rule of law, elections, and free press, the law in that country holds more importance than unelected dictatorships with state controlled media.
Small L liberalism has a lot of values around the things you suggest: free speech, freedom of expression, laws against violence. A lot of these values make the answers to your questions pretty easy. In the corner cases if the country has rule of law, elections, and a free press - deference to their law is probably fine (though not a panacea).
As for the "US superiority" argument, some argue that US is no different than North Korea, maybe US corporations should consider Nordic morales and laws when doing business in India then? After all, according to democracy index Norway is much more democratic than the US.
People stormed the Capitol a few months back and according to the polls a significant portion of the US population thinks that the elections in the USA are not fair and the sitting president is installed there by a deep state cabal. However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy.
Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?
Sounds ridiculous but only if you are not among the majority[0] of the Republican party voters.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-tru...
I'm not sure anyone actually argues this? If they do they're not really worth your time.
This isn't "US superiority" it's about rights for individuals in a liberal society. If the US fails to meet these goals then it should do better too.
> "However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy."
It's pretty clear cut - lots of people believe insane things, that doesn't make the truth unclear.
> "Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal?"
I doubt Indians would ask that, they might ask why a western company is aiding their own government in suppressing the truth about their family and friends dying from Covid though.