For instance, before this, some of the most ethically questionable censorship stories I have heard from Facebook have had to do with minority groups or various activists in more repressive regimes around the world being blocked or censored.
Likewise, with Cambridge Analytica claiming to have worked with more than 200 elections around the world [1], and Channel 4 not painting an exactly flattering picture of their ethics, it's very possible that some of the most disturbing details that will emerge from this scandal have zilch to do with Donald Trump.
The extent to which the HN consensus is simultaneously exuberant about EU regulatory enforcement because "you should follow the law" and angry about other forms of regulatory compliance is astounding.
Repressive laws under authoritarian regimes are laws too. At the very least, we should admit that we're evaluating the specific rules (or the people making them) under some other rubric before deciding whether they ought to be obeyed. The sentiment you express here is exactly why "companies should obey the laws where their users live" and "countries should make laws according to their values and enforce them against websites accessible by their citizens" are too simplistic.
For instance, before this, some of the most ethically questionable censorship stories I have heard from Facebook have had to do with minority groups or various activists in more repressive regimes around the world being blocked or censored.
Likewise, with Cambridge Analytica claiming to have worked with more than 200 elections around the world [1], and Channel 4 not painting an exactly flattering picture of their ethics, it's very possible that some of the most disturbing details that will emerge from this scandal have zilch to do with Donald Trump.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-secretly-...