this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
1089 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
69867 readers
3196 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Complying with the incumbent to silence opposition is a political decision. Erdoğan is known for silencing and jailing opposition and anyone with knowledge of Turkish politics is aware of this
No it's not. Did you even read the linked X Global Affairs post?
It's not a political decision, it's a legal one. If they don't comply then the entire site can legally be banned from the entire country, for example.
Yes I read that and hold that this decision is still highly political. Technically X can choose to simply not exist in Turkey. Obviously they won't do this and Erdogan knows this, profit is king. This doesn't change the fact that they are choosing to cow to threats by a dictator. Legal decisions are political and have political implications. Who do you think wrote those laws?
So you think that instead of complying while fighting the legal order and being able to tell users that what is happening, you think that they should pull the entire site from the country?
They aren’t “choosing to bow to threats by a dictator” - they are following the law, and fighting the legal order through the courts.
Come on mate lol. They’re doing the absolute most user and free speech friendly thing they can possibly do given the situation.
Question - what would you have done in this situation if you owned and ran X?
I would never stoop so low as to exploit the labor of others
What?
I am well aware it isn't a logical business decision, I just don't care
I’m asking who’s labor is being exploited here?
The employees of X, or any company for that matter. Businesses can only profit by extracting a portion of the value created by a laborer as value can only come from labor. This is exploitative because the laborer is by default put into a situation where they must sell their labor or starve and even still they only recieve a small percentage of the value they produce. This is effectively coercion at the threat of destitution.
O……..k………..
So absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, just ……… anything but communism is bad?
Yeah I made my point about the topic at hand but you kept asking questions so the topic changed.
The topic never even remotely veered towards the benefits of communism over capitalism.
If you want the reasoning behind my answer I can give that. I have a very strong and rigid code of ethics unbound by the social and economic structures I was born in to. I believe in the efficacy of civil disobedience and believe all people should engage in it when reasonable. I apply this not just to people but also whatever businesses they own. I believe we should not abide by unjust laws and should take the consequences for breaking them. Therefore X should not have abided by this unjust law and should have let itself be banned. I simply do not care how it would effect their profits or if it is a good business decision.
I never mentioned communism, I only described capitalism
And the exploitation of labor? Where did that come into it?
You asked what I would do if I owned and ran X. I said I would never exploit others for labor as a way of saying I would never own a business.
Ah ok so you didn’t answer my question, you wanted to prove some anti-capitalist point that had nothing to do with the conversation.