> What is GitHub supposed to do?
Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.
Disobey the law, make a public statement about it, and deal with the consequences. This is not a new problem, it was treated by Kant a few centuries ago.
Although I agree the export embargo is fucking stupid, especially when it comes to online technology, I really want to see less criminal behavior from companies, not more.
The law is not stupid, it's criminal. By following it, companies are precisely engaging in criminal behavior.
The law itself is not illegal, as the lawmakers have created and enacted that law. It's the opposite, the law is declaring what's illegal.
So, if GitHub doesn't ban users from Iran, they are breaking the law in the US.
Hope this clears up any misunderstanding on how things work.
GitHub could comply with the law without completely banning users who access their service from Iran, e.g. by making their website unavailable for Iranian IPs or by making paid features unavailable.
But, if the CEO of GitHub (Nat Friedman) claims that they "do no more than what is required by the law" and end up banning a user, my understanding is that the lawyers are GitHub and Microsoft have made the judgement that banning users are a must, simply restricting them temporary is not enough.
Again, I think export embargoes are shit and don't necessarily agree with the calls that GitHub/Microsoft did, but trying to understand the side they are coming from here.
It may be countered that the law isn't actually unjust (nor immoral), but a more convincing point is that it opens the door for companies to do whatever they like. I don't think that holds up - morality is supposed to supercede law.
It could be argued that anyone can disobey any law because anyone can find something moral or immoral - but that doesn't stand up; most people (and certainly society in general) admit some degree of objectivity in morality to the point where almost all moral questions either already have an answer, or the answer is currently being discussed (and that discussion is a process to find the right answer). People tend to say morality is "subjective" (whatever that means) or "relative", but act as though it is objective - with all the blame, shame, guilt, and assigning of responsibility. Even if it is "relative", it is relative to this society, in which GitHub operates.
Some people are interpreting this discussion on morality and law as being a matter of what a company or person does or doesn't "like" - morality is (by most accounts) a different ballgame, and should not (epistemologically speaking) be conflated with mere preference. Disobeying a just law (and doing something unjust in the process) is just as morally blameworthy as obeying an unjust law (and doing something unjust in the process). It's not a carte blanche for companies to do as they please.
I'm not commenting on this specific case; I'm silent on my moral reasoning of it, but I wanted to try and explain what I think GP was getting at.