Companies suspending service to Russia post-globalism is a troublesome precedent | Hacker News Reader

Companies suspending service to Russia post-globalism is a troublesome precedent

circuitbored.com

9 pointswinternett14 comments

The idea of McDonald's diplomacy may not be absolutely true[0], but it is a good indicator. Good multinational corporations care about their customers no matter where they are. If corporations think that they can 'virtue signal' that they are following the latest trend, and it happens to be anti-Russian this time, then things get bad. This is horribly different than companies supporting LGBTQ. Instead of cutting off customers in Russia, these companies should be donating to the Red Cross, or some such thing with an outcome that betters the situation, instead of trying to put their voice in the communal amplifier for their 15 minutes of extra news time and accepting nods today that will be forgotten by all tomorrow.

Note: I find it very odd that I wrote this, and yet I saw Elon Musk's post yesterday. I guess cognitive priming is a lot more effective than I thought. Still agree with what I wrote.

[0]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mcdonalds-countries-war/

The people of Russia absolutely share culpability for the actions of their government. Without a shooting war, the only people who can stop the actions of the Russian government are the Russian people. Every international company that amplifies this message nudges them forward to do so.

Putin is not going to stop because someone confiscated his yacht. Donating to the Red Cross while coddling the Russian People sends a clear message that Putin should feel free to do what he pleases and the "West" will pay to clean up the aftermath.

How does one apply pressure to a government that does not impact it's people? It is impossible. The whole reason sanctions (and wars for that matter) work at all is that they are intended to impact the people and by proxy the government.

Government sanctions are fair game. The problem is when (for example) US drug makers stop shopping vital things like insulin and covid vaccines to a foreign country because of the actions of leaders involved in a war that doesn't directly involve the companies nor affected citizens, and then publicly posts about their actions as if it is a commendable move.

Where's the line between providing a public service, and "reserve the right to refuse service to any customer?"

To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery refuse to make a "gay wedding cake?" how about a "nazi wedding cake?"

How about this one? https://www.kcur.org/news/2022-03-16/a-missouri-radio-statio...

Is this a free press providing service for cash without prejudice, or is this collaborating with the enemy?

The principles of free speech, as articulated in boring historical contexts, still matter. Free association, freedom to trade, all those good things that the conspiracy theorists have said are under assault, are under assault. The interchangeable panic of the day seems secondary to the drive to forget why we had articulated those principles in the first place.

> To give a dead horse another kick: can a bakery refuse to make a "gay wedding cake?" how about a "nazi wedding cake?"

That law applies to US persons in the US. This is not a globally ratified treaty or a UN mandate. If you think you can enforce that law in Saudi Arabia or Hungary or China you are free to try.

But I get that you're using it in a broader moral sense, to which I'll respond: being gay didn't kill anyone. Plenty of gay folks not killing people all the time; I've walked through The Castro and didn't get murdered once. Russia meanwhile made a very deliberate moral choice to launch a large-scale war against another country, and his demonstrated again and again that it makes bad-faith claims and engages in shady behavior all for the benefit of a handful of Oligarchs.

This is a complex topic that's hard to write a short comment about. Overall I'd understand conscientious objection to helping the Russian offensive in any way, as well as a long held desire not to do business in a particular country, even if for political reasons. What I don't like is operations that clearly have no connection to the war pulling out from an existing business of serving regular Russians because of mob pressure, like McDonalds for example. They are not harming anyone by staying (except maybe those eating the food ;) - I love McDonalds food, to be clear), it is just pure virtue signaling, and beating up on ordinary people. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm not aware of any US law that states:

"an entity must do business in any given foreign country"

nor any US law that states:

"an entity must not terminate a business in a given foreign country"

Given that, I don't see any issue with a company choosing to exit or suspend business in Russia or the US for that matter.

> an entity must do business in any given foreign country

Here's some examples: https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boyco...

Those laws don't forbid a company from exiting or suspending international operations. They say that if you do so specifically in Israel, then a given US State government will not do business with you.

While similar, it neither applies to Russia nor prohibits the suspension or termination of an international arm of your business.

You must do business with Israel or you will face these defined consequences.

You must not murder someone or you will face these defined consequences.

I don't see a distinction between the two. They both aim to stop a behavior with threats of punishment.

I personally see a clear distinction between punishment for a felony and a refusal by the State of RI to do "State business" with me or for that matter, being grounded for too much phone use.

I guess you are entitled to your worldview.

"We aren't in violation of Roe vs Wade, no. We just passed a law that the state won't do business with a firm that has any employees that have ever had an abortion."

These word games remind me of civil asset forfeiture, "oh no, we aren't charging you with a crime we are charging your car and cars don't have rights so we don't have to have a trial. Hand over the keys."

The author forgets about corporations having to pay taxes, that are later used to bomb Ukrainian cities. The only way not to is to withdraw.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com