I don't know a solution to this problem. But I also do not want to live in a world, where free speech is effectively limited by Austrian defamation laws and US prudery for everyone.
I don't know a solution to this problem. But I also do not want to live in a world, where free speech is effectively limited by Austrian defamation laws and US prudery for everyone.
The problem is that whether a country can enforce its speech restrictions against outsiders has very little to do with how much we agree with them. If you don't want to follow the law of North Korea, you'll lose access to the North Korean market. Which nobody cares about, so nobody follows them. But what happens when it's China?
The solution is for laws to apply to the location of the host and provide no assistance to anyone who wants to do otherwise. Then you can host your criticisms of politicians in the US and your violations of US prudery in Germany. That isn't a race to the bottom, it's a race to the top. It's the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, as intended.
What happens is US companies quickly capitulate and start appeasing the chinese authorities! They still get access to the american market if they sacrifice core western and american values like freedom of speech and privacy but they lose the growing chinese market if they refuse to do so. It's an easy decision for them.
Why do you care if Nike wants to put on a fake face for their brand in China? They are already doing the same thing here and probably several other places.
I think you have that backwards.
I'm honestly a bit jealous of that. The EU should grow some balls and make life hell for anyone who violates EU rulings.
The article used that wording, "a classic risk of a race to the bottom", but it doesn't feel entirely accurate to me.
A classic example of a race to the bottom is when jurisdictions compete to attract businesses by lowering their corporation tax rates and regulations. The end result would be zero taxes and zero regulations (unless a country offered a negative tax rate or other incentives).
For censorship, though, I don't see there being a "race" between countries. Just because Austria bans defamation doesn't mean that all other countries will try to out-compete Austria by banning something even less objectionable. What would "the bottom" even be in this "race"? Banning all speech from the internet? Internet companies would simply avoid having any assets or presence in any country that tried that.
Perhaps a better analogy would be "opening the flood gates" or "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link", suggesting that the strictest set of rules would be the one that ended up being implemented.
Did Washington residents really prefer not to have Boeing at all rather than the tax-incentivized Boing they got? Wasn't it up to them in how they voted? Sometimes they do reject it, like how New York rejected Amazon.
Dropping the dogma of free trade and free flow of capital, and taxing any transactions involving tax havens to the point where it's not profitable to use them for tax avoidance.
You can only have countries' tax systems and regulations competing in global "free market" of jurisdictions if the countries are actually free to set arbitrary tax rates and tariffs.
It is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against political systems that you disagree with. It's pretty much the basis of international diplomacy, such as it is: a system of bargaining and coercion that usually prevents outright war.
Caring about political systems is just spin used as an excuse.
Indeed, the US at the same time went hard after Japan whose political system (even though in practice is barely it at all democratic) it created, but courted the Chinese one-party state.
The rest is just rhetoric.