OTOH: forcing every country in the world to obey google is no better.
Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation.
A human right is something to kill and die for. If someone breaks into your home, you ought to defend yourself. If a government is censoring you, you are justified in civil war to defend your rights.
But now "human rights" are political speech for "something I want". I want free housing and medical care and internet access, so those things must be human rights.
And to be clear, those are great things. Being able to provide medical care to people is wonderful. But that does not make it a human right.
What precisely is the line here? You have the right to defend a home if you have one, but you don't have a right to have it?
Is food a human right, but not housing or medical care? Do you also believe food is not a human right?
If food is a human right (i'm going to assume favorably that you agree with me that it is), what distinguishes food - essential for survival - from medical care, which is also frequently essential for survival in modern culture?
Is it okay to deprive children of - for example - necessary vaccines and allow them to catch, spread and die from preventable diseases, because some children may survive? Near-starvation may also kill some children but not all, so is that OK?
Alternately, if you believe neither food or medicine or housing are human rights - okay? - what makes free speech a human right when those aren't, specifically? How can you exercise your free speech, exactly, if someone takes away your food as punishment for speech they dislike or if they confiscate your home along with the property you use to communicate?
Your definition of human right here is confusing and circular. Almost anything can be worth killing for depending on who you ask, otherwise you wouldn't have people getting murdered by thieves or scorned lovers. What makes it worth killing for or dying for? What makes it justified or not justified?
Obviously there are ways to establish a logical framework here but your post makes it hard to understand what framework you're operating on.
I believe in natural rights. Human rights must be things that are natural and innate to humans. This is a very Google-able thing, and there has been a lot of interesting philosophy on the topic, but I will try and summarize here.
My core belief is that humans are sovereign over themselves. My body is my own. This is where all rights flow from. If I build or buy a house, and you break in, you are violating my sovernty over myself and my property.
On the other hand, if I force you to build me a house, I am violating your sovernty. Therefore it cannot be my right to have free housing , because doing so would violate your rights to not be a slave. If we mutually agree on terms and I pay you to build me a house, that's wonderful. But saying I have a right to make you build me a house is tantamount to slavery.
Natural rights almost always boil down to force. It is wrong for me to force you to do anything, even if that thing is "good" such as providing me with free food or internet. You and I are both autonomous adults and we can either come to mutually beneficial terms or not do business at all.
> How can you exercise your free speech, exactly, if someone takes away your food as punishment for speech they dislike or if they confiscate your home along with the property you use to communicate?
If someone stole your food or your house, that would be a violation of your rights. Again, it comes down to the use of aggression and force. Are you forcing your local grocer to give you food that he doesn't want to give you? That's theft, plain and simple.
And I feel I need to reiterate: it's perfectly fine if you think the government should provide taxpayer funded medicine, housing, food, internet, etc. But just because you think something is good to have does not make it a right. It's the redefinition and watering down of the idea of human rights that upsets me.
Even accepting your ridiculous premises, none of this makes sense.
Google only has as much influence as individual users of their services give it.
Which means Google holds a lot of soft power in the eyes of the government.
In today's world, some of the corporations size and influence allows them to behave the way the want and, I see this as problematic.
Google may not be killing anyone who disagrees with them and, they can freely decide where to conduct business. I have no problem with these points.
However, I see Google's behavior as problematic. Google's response dşffers from country to country. They have a similar problem in EU (more specifically European Economic Area) and, they have implemented a selection screen similar to Microsoft's browser & search engine selection screen. Turkey might not be in EU but, as a country it has every right to level the playing field for the companies (in this case Yandex and Google) in order to increase the competition.
The but Microsoft! response is coming from the change of tone in response to this issue. When Microsoft became the monopoly and pushed Sun Microsystems and other browsers around, the unanimous vote was to divide or somewhat stop them. When Google does a similar thing, response changes with respect to country which Google has a dispute. I find this wrong.
P.S.: I'm a bit tired and English is not my native language. If I messed the writing, please point it out. I'll try to clarify.