"It’s not just Midjourney’s China-based users that can’t satirize Xi Jinping — that rule applies to users everywhere, even in the United States.
Local laws are suddenly not so local anymore, and people like Holz have no qualms about aiding their illiberal international spread."
Good post by @sarahemclaugh on the mix of greed and cowardice that seems to have led Midjourney CEO's to make satire about China's ruler off-limits in that AI-art platform.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/31/midjourney-ceo-says-political-satire-in-china-is-pretty-not-okay-but-apparently-silencing-satire-about-xi-jinping-is-pretty-okay/
@robpegoraro @sarahemclaugh Seems to me that local laws only matter to the international business community proportionally to the size of the market for which those laws apply.
So of course these laws get exported. The point of business isn't to uphold democracy; it's to pay your employees' mortgages.
Therefore, exporting censorship laws is just good business. I don't think we should be holding Midjourney responsible for doing exactly what a for-profit business should do.
If anything, we should be pissed at the US government for propping up cheap trade with the Chinese, despite their anti-democratic ways, that led to this oppressive economic powerhouse that gets to make global rules. Unlike for-profit businesses, it actually is the job of the federal government to uphold the democratic ideals it was founded upon.
@sarahemclaugh @robpegoraro Of course I would have a problem with it; I would probably boycott them for violating my values, as I would Midjourney.
But in either case, I wouldn't be surprised, nor could I blame the for-profit businesses for aligning with the values of the larger potential market, just because that market doesn't include me.
So, I guess my argument boils down to something along the lines of: blaming companies for doing what they're incentivized to do is just addressing the symptoms, not the cause.
@LouisIngenthron @robpegoraro I get your point, I just don’t agree that we can expect nothing more from global industries, especially ones that often profess to hold some higher values than just markets alone.
@sarahemclaugh @robpegoraro I think those very businesses have proved, time and time again, that we can expect nothing more.
@LouisIngenthron @sarahemclaugh Google and Facebook are unquestionably among those money-grubbing businesses, but they still don't do business in China.
@LouisIngenthron @sarahemclaugh That article documents how Google still doesn't offer its search engine, the core of its business, in China. I'll edit my earlier post accordingly, but I don't think it helps your argument.
They have very much explored the option. For them, maybe the math just doesn't pan out, and the markets they'd lose exceed the markets they'd gain.
@robpegoraro @LouisIngenthron yeah but the point there is that they explored it, info about it became public and people complained, and they terminated it. Sometimes there is value in expressing opposition to companies’ behavior
@sarahemclaugh @robpegoraro Sure. As I said before, I'd boycott on such grounds. If enough people did the same, then the math on the markets shifts and it becomes more profitable to not give in to the laws of the second market.
@robpegoraro @LouisIngenthron so, for example, you wouldn’t have a problem with it if movie studios decided to no longer include LGBT themes or characters to avoid Russian or Saudi laws and to protect their business in those countries? Because it’s the same principle