Right, but it should be acknowledged that this is likely an amoral decision on Facebook's part (or more charitably, a pragmatic decision) not an immoral one.

The governments that forced these changes in the first place are of course acting immorally, that's not in dispute.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think that’s what amoral means. It’s not malicious but doing something that hurts others just because you gain money from it isn’t amoral just because you’re not doing it just to inflict pain.

Hyperbolic example: If your boss tells you to kill the next customer or you won’t get paid, doing the killing isn’t amoral.

	▲	Ajedi32 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. Even if Facebook is being threatened they're still ultimately responsible for their actions. Maybe amoral isn't the right word to describe this. I guess it just feels like a lot to me to expect a company to break the law on purpose, even in the service of a greater moral duty. But maybe it shouldn't. Obviously if they did pull out of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over this rather than comply that would be a laudable stand.

▲

nailer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Facebook acquiscing to dictatorships that block human rights organizations is immoral.

	▲	lostlogin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is. It’s not as bas as the time they helped organise a genocide though, so there is that.