Can we please start a cultural movement that forces large corporations to choose between appeasing Chinese censors and looking like fools to the rest of the west or getting banned in China.
Really seems like a win win scenario.
replies(8):
Really seems like a win win scenario.
But what about the share-holder value?
Corporations love sitting the moral grey area on issues like this, but putting them in a position of having to choose between looking like Chinese stooges or getting banned from China will break their minds.
It sure doesn't seem to me that bending to the will of an authoritarian state is "sitting in the moral grey area." They've made their decision.
I was glad to see earlier on CNN a 'super' writing "NBA Commissioner: we are no apologizing..."
But the first 24h the reactions went from not existing to laughable. Good to see that freedom is more important than revenue.
Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning.
I would say at most, 10% of the US consumes/pays for NBA related products. NBA finals are estimated to have 15M viewers last year, so even doubling that you're only getting to 10%.
> Also the state itself determines what the constitution is and even how it's interpreted or overriden. So saying state is accountable to constitution (which is determined by state ) is circular reasoning.
Well, sort of. Human systems are messy and insisting that any term applied to them be absolutely true or else invalid won't get you far. That some governments would have more success and ease modifying the terms of their own constitution wildly counter to the will or interests of those they rule than others can easily be seen as true, I think, and is related to the set of norms and ideals held by those who believe they ought justly and actually to have a say in how the government runs, and to who sees themselves as being legitimately entitled to same, for that matter (i.e. do most expect that, or only some minority), and furthermore both of those are influenced by the constitution, laws, and actual historical practices of the state they're operating under.
Technically possible matters less than what is practical and likely when it comes to classifying human systems, as they're hard to pick apart and take one element at a time what with all the feedback and mutual influence involved.
I feel like you are missing a vital part of your understanding on how liberal democracies were founded and how the balance of power is distributed between the people and institutions that govern them.