> It’s neither ethical nor unethical, nor is it a corporation’s job to decide whether it is. That’s the role of government.
The government does not define ethics. Abiding by laws does not factor into the ethics of a choice. It is up to everyone, including corporation leadership, to pursue ethical standards.
You do not seem capable of recognizing that you support unethical actions. You appear convinced that choices you support are de facto ethical because you've deemed them worthwhile. This is a cancerous worldview. It's ok to say that following a law is unethical but still worthwhile. It's deeply harmful to say that it is ethical because you think it is worthwhile.
Everything you're saying boils down to "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just a part of a system" as an argument that you have no culpability to your actions. Or perhaps much more toxically, "I'm a good person therefore my actions have been good".
I don't really care about banning whatsapp or tiktok personally. Your rhetoric is the disgusting thing here.
The government does not define ethics. Abiding by laws does not factor into the ethics of a choice. It is up to everyone, including corporation leadership, to pursue ethical standards.
You do not seem capable of recognizing that you support unethical actions. You appear convinced that choices you support are de facto ethical because you've deemed them worthwhile. This is a cancerous worldview. It's ok to say that following a law is unethical but still worthwhile. It's deeply harmful to say that it is ethical because you think it is worthwhile.
Everything you're saying boils down to "I'm just following orders" or "I'm just a part of a system" as an argument that you have no culpability to your actions. Or perhaps much more toxically, "I'm a good person therefore my actions have been good".
I don't really care about banning whatsapp or tiktok personally. Your rhetoric is the disgusting thing here.