Twitter finds 201 accounts tied to Russian agents who posted political ads on Facebook

[stinkubus]

USAID (which channels money to hundreds of other organizations) has done everything from training torturers in South America to bribing people to overthrow governments around the middle east. But don't take my word for it, search for yourself. There are plenty of stories.

Furthermore, this is absolutely normal. States always tie their "aid" to political objectives, some just do it more than others. Even "neutral Sweden" did it. What I cannot stand is people and whole institutions that do this and then play saints.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: CFC is a discussion forum, rather than a "click my link" forum. Please summarise the main point of any video longer than a couple of minutes. Thank you.

 

[Camikaze]

We don't need to justify anything in this framework though, all we have to do is say "if you want to do business in the US, you have to follow these rules." If the Australian government lacks the cojones to say something similar to these companies, it's not the US's fault.

It's not a matter of cajones, it's that although Australia may be able to regulate Facebook or make demands of how it operates, it definitely can't do so on the basis that Facebook is a local company. So the 'local company' theory is not really a satisfactory explanation for why a government ought to be able to regulate a company which is essentially an international utility. So what might the justification be instead? That the company operates within a country (ignoring for a moment the legal complexity involve in the distinction between a company operating within a country and being in a country)? That leaves open the China problem, i.e. the problem that such a justification would allow for the regulation of the platform globally at the most repressive level requested.

The US doesn't need to search for a universal justification in order to take action, in the sense that the US is clearly capable of acting in an unjustified of unprincipled manner. But the lack of any universal justification does leave the US discussion aggravatingly exceptionalist.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't believe any kind of ethical justification is necessary for state action regulating the behavior of business entities. Businesses exist at the pleasure of the public.

 

[stinkubus]

I don't believe any kind of ethical justification is necessary for state action regulating the behavior of business entities. Businesses exist at the pleasure of the public.

A good poster on another forum I frequent said it best (I'm paraphrasing), "Companies that benefit no one other than their shareholders don't have some magical right to exist."

 

[Camikaze]

If we're just talking about the regulation of the company , then I get your point, though not exactly as you've expressed it (presumably you actually mean that there is automatically sufficient ethical justification, not that there is no ethic justification). Although that point is taking a really oversimplified view of the world. But the US discussion also is about the regulation of people's speech, e.g. the speech of Russians or other foreigners, or how such individuals use the company's services. You don't get to conveniently avoid addressing the issues involved in one country regulating speech on an international level, simply because that regulation is mediated through a corporate structure or other business entity. If Facebook were instead run as a partnership, the same issues would arise.

 

[Lexicus]

presumably you actually mean that there is automatically sufficient ethical justification, not that there is no ethic justification

Sure. Actually, I would say that the ethical justification is simply a bit different from the sort of balance one would apply when regulating the behavior of actual people. People have inalienable rights; business entities have rights because society has decided that giving them rights provides some public benefit. If those rights no longer benefit the public they can be taken away with no more ethical justification than that.

If Facebook were instead run as a partnership, the same issues would arise.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply my point was restricted to certain types of corporations. I'm talking about any and all business entities here, which includes partnerships and other forms of enterprise.

"Companies that benefit no one other than their shareholders don't have some magical right to exist."