
Russia, after protests, tells Google not to advertise “illegal” events - rumcajz
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-protests-google/russia-after-protests-tells-google-not-to-advertise-illegal-events-idUSKCN1V10BY
======
evmar
I find it interesting on HN how inevitably the commenters reach for "Google
should disobey the law here" in stories like these. As if megacorps weren't
terrifying enough, now we expect them to extrajudiciously decide which laws
they think are "just" enough to obey or not? And then simultaneously when it
comes to privacy laws (GPDR etc.) we also clutch our pearls about how these
companies aren't doing enough!

Don't get me wrong: clearly unjust laws exist and there exist situations where
resistance is the moral thing to do. I just find it terrifying how _quickly_
people jump to saying it'd be appropriate for obscenely powerful companies
like Google to make up their own legal system and pick and choose which laws
apply to them.

(Disclaimer: Google employee / American citizen, find both orgs frightening)

~~~
soulofmischief
It only looks like that when you view it one-dimensionally.

In truth, there is a kind of Grand Unified Law, of which we are still working
out the details, which we (whether we realize it or not) want companies to
follow. It is law based on ethics and morality, and no legal infrastructure in
any country today is entirely accommodating of this law.

The fact is that we live in a world full of corrupt politics, and most of the
time when companies have to "play ball" with requests such as censorship, it's
a bad thing. We are working on the GUL but we _do_ know that it includes
freedom of speech.

This is very separate from things like regulations and safety measures, which
are obviously in place for a reason and which would also exist in this
hypothetical GUL.

You simply cannot break it down as "sometimes you want them to follow the law
and sometimes you don't", because the law is imperfect and does not currently
reflect the best case scenario. I would resist censorship in another country
and I expect Google, et al. to do the same on the basis of putting ethics
before money.

~~~
evmar
I think what you're saying is that morality exists outside of the rule of law,
which I agree with.

But then you're saying that you think that companies like Google are morally
equipped to be able to determine this law better than states would, which I
think is where you lose me. Legal systems are also imperfect but at least
there is oversight and (at least symbolic) input from citizens.

~~~
close04
Morality can exist outside of the law but the law is not about morality. The
law is/should be the "stable" version of morality because the latter is a lot
more flexible than the former. And in a functioning systems the law should be
adapted to the morals of society every once in a while.

Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your
grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your
grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general
consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future?

And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority
since they are created by the representatives of that majority?

~~~
zzzcpan
To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is
individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So
the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality.

For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-
violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can
never agree on a stable version of morality on this.

~~~
close04
> there is no such thing as the morals of society

Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"?

> For example, in my morals

But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into
something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers
something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree.

Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as
immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral
even if some individuals disagreed

~~~
zzzcpan
Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean
other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do
you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at
the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of
society.

~~~
close04
Ok, this seems like a different argument from the one you made above, that
morality is purely individual.

If the overall morals of society (as represented by the majority) don't get
transposed into law then we go back to my original comment:

> in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society

In a democracy the top of the hierarchy is chosen to represent the views of
individuals that elected them.

Edit: Whether the morals of society are dictated by the few (rulers) or by the
many (people) it doesn't change the conclusion. At some point the balance
regarding society's view on the morality of certain things tips. And as an
individual you are still very much the product of society. Can we agree that
there are things now where there is a societal consensus regarding their
morality?

There are actually very few things where societies over time consistently
agreed on their morality (like theft).

------
cybice
Google can use Russian Constitution:

31\. Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to assemble
peacefully, without weapons, hold rallies, meetings and demonstrations,
marches and pickets.

Article 29

1\. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.

2\. The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or
religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social,
racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.

3\. No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject
them.

4\. Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit,
produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data
comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law.

5\. The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be
banned.

PS. Im Russian and live here.

~~~
azangru
There is also federal act number 54-FZ, which says that the local authorities
should be notified of the planned event (Article 5, section 4); and if the
respective authority does not approve the event then it shall not be held
(Article 5, section 5) [1]. This latter norm is criticized for being not
entirely constitutional [2]; but it is a part of the present Russian legal
framework. Should Google in any way be bound by this federal act?

1- [In Russian]
[http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?rnd=91E57842AD2...](http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?rnd=91E57842AD234D3FF22F8620D46D9ADF&req=doc&base=LAW&n=308824&REFFIELD=134&REFDST=1000000008&REFDOC=107815&REFBASE=LAW&stat=refcode%3D17416%3Bindex%3D11#2ggsw78lw72)

2-
[https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?p...](https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-
AD\(2012\)007-e)

------
patrickmay
> MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia’s state communications watchdog said on Sunday it
> had asked Google (GOOGL.O) to stop advertising “illegal mass events” on its
> YouTube video platform.

> Tens of thousands of Russians staged what observers called the country’s
> biggest political protest for eight years on Saturday, defying a crackdown
> to demand free elections to Moscow’s city legislature.

> The watchdog, Roscomnadzor, said Russia would consider it interference in
> its sovereign affairs and a hostile influence should Google fails to respond
> to the request.

If Google still follows "Don't be evil", it will respond with the equivalent
of a middle finger. I hope someone there still thinks Enlightenment values are
more important than kowtowing to a repressive government.

~~~
pfundstein
Firstly Google has ditched that slogan, so no use in trying to arbitrarily
hold them to it. And secondly, Google has to operate within the law regardless
of country.

------
rhacker
It's just too good - We have blamed Russia for using our platforms to elect
someone. Now Russia is telling our platforms to block certain content
otherwise they will consider it interference. The Cold War never ended did it?

~~~
dmix
Isn’t it pretty common policy for the US et al to promote pro democracy
protests and politicians in other countries? If it did come from state backed
information sources I could see some legitimacy to the claim but I doubt
that’s the only thing they mean.

As always there will be tons of misdirection to hide the sources and
overstating of the impact of foreign boogiemen for political points and
justification of new information controls. It’s a tactic as old as politics.

~~~
lazyjones
> _Isn’t it pretty common policy for the US et al to promote pro democracy
> protests and politicians in other countries?_

No, the US have supported and promoted dozens of coups and dictators. The
phrase you're looking for is not "pro democracy", it's "aligned with the US
interests".

~~~
deogeo
These kinds of criticisms can ring rather shallow and generic without
examples. So here's an example:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat)

~~~
natechols
It's still pretty shallow and generic if the cited example occurred when my
parents were still small children.

~~~
soulofmischief
How, exactly? One day your children could say the same of political atrocities
committed in your youth. Governments outlast people.

The infrastructure and incentives which drive it have not changed. America was
founded and bred on colonialism and foreign dictatorships which enable cheap
cost of living at the expense of hellish working conditions in other
countries.

~~~
natechols
If you're going to claim that something is common practice, you should be able
to do better than a 65-year-old example. There are certainly many more recent
examples of American foreign policy screwups - some of which were vastly more
destructive than Iran - but I'm not aware of any during my lifetime that
involved overthrowing a democratically elected government.

~~~
soulofmischief
By this logic, governments would never be held accountable for their actions
if they simply waited to address them 65 years after the fact.

------
Nasrudith
This highlights one of the undermentioned issues of both international
businesses of clashing sets of laws. It is surprising really that this is
still done ad-hocly even after many years of international trade and shifting
relationships between countries. It is flat out impossible to follow all sets
of laws at once.

Even in a 'federate it out to one per country that follows its laws' would
become rapidly problematic if linkage to the 'main' company. Google couldn't
just set up say a Google-Iran following Iranian laws without violating
sanctions.

I'm not sure if there either a 'good' universal answer or one which is widely
liked. The easiest and most controlling would be a radical 'ban international
business' \- it would make the domains clearer but would be a bad idea.
Extraterritorality would be a 'technical' solution but would also come with so
many problems it isn't funny makes the previous bad idea look good in
comparison.

~~~
dunkelheit
Very good point, but surely this problem is not without precedent? Disputes in
international waters come to mind. Maybe there is a need for some kind on
international convention governing these matters.

~~~
Nasrudith
Yeah but they weren't exactly "stable" \- they were kinds of incidents which
lead to / were used as pretexts for wars.

Internet and enforcibility complicate matters further - even if they
formalized say a "free to host to everywhere but not to monetize".

------
dimator
How can a protest video be considered illegal in a country that claims to be
an open and free democracy?

There was a time when I would expect Google to stick to its principles and say
no. Nowadays, I'm not so sure.

~~~
dan-robertson
Is this a serious question?

Even if one ignores the obvious Russia-specific answer, there are plenty of
reasons for a protest to be illegal in more western states. Normally it would
be illegal to assemble on private land without permission, for example. And
there are often laws requiring protests to eg seek permission for a planned
route and stick to it (though these may not necessarily be enforced).

~~~
DenisM
A protest itself may or may not be illegal, depending on the country. The
video of it, on the other hand...

~~~
jwieczorek
A video encouraging people to participate in an illegal gathering could in
some jurisdictions be considered a form of incitement.

~~~
pas
Whose responsibility is it to filter content? It seems the Russian Federation
wants Google to interpret the law instead of courts.

------
dredmorbius
Oh the irony. Do as I say, not as I do.

------
sorokod
Any one can provide a sample link to "“illegal mass events” on its YouTube
video platform* ?

~~~
zzzcpan
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIlgTCVInOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIlgTCVInOE)

------
shmerl
Why should Google listen to what they say? Pull the company from dictatorship
regimes, and then ignore their commands.

------
ryan_j_naughton
> The watchdog, Roscomnadzor, said Russia would consider it interference in
> its sovereign affairs and a hostile influence should Google fails to respond
> to the request.

Given how the Russians are obviously meddling in elections around the world
using hacking and disinformation campaigns, I don't think they really have any
leg to stand on here. Their acceptance of flagrantly violating laws in other
countries means that really the US, through Google, should be trying to meddle
inside Russia to advocate for opposition parties and Democratic/civil society
institutions. If the West could effectively organize mass anti-Putin protests
and scare him, it seems beneficial in a world where his meddling has gone
relatively unanswered except for sanctions.

Especially if our answer was "we" will focus on disseminating accurate
information and supporting free speech, countering both authoritarianism and
disinformation campaigns, it would become a brighter line of differing world
philosophies and give some moral foundation in its connection to Western
liberalism. It would be meddling through its support of individual rights,
free expression, freedom to assemble, supporting free elections. It's similar
to giving political asylum to persecuted opposition leaders who stand for
liberalism and democracy and then amplifying their message from exile.

We should enshrine this support of such rights into some NGOs and
international treaties (many of which we already have) that Democratic
societies could sign and then multinational corporations would have a standard
of international law to follow. Then instead of corporations having to choose
which laws to follow, they would have more clarity through following
international law.

And obviously there is a massive slippery slope in everything I just proposed.

It's like how the Bretton Woods Conference after WWII established the World
Bank and the IMF to push a western global paradigm for how we think economic
development, which entrenched a markets based system over a communist system.
I think developing some new organizations / treaties that then help align how
all these multinationals and Western governments work together in an era of
the internet to push for certain rights, would be a net positive, while
fraught proposition.

Right now massive amounts of power are being consolidated into a handful of
internet companies, and that power is being manipulated to sow discord and
disinformation to the benefit mostly of authoritarian regimes. We could way
more effectively use this power to fight those regimes and begin to play
offense instead of only defense.

