upvote
I don't think someone accessing content on US servers run by a US company counts as "operating in" any country other than the US.

But Meta is an international company, so maybe they have servers/staff in Saudi Arabia, in which case their only options are to leave the country or comply.

reply
operating here is the buying and selling of ads
reply
I'd argue doing business with a foreigner doesn't constitute "operating in" that person's country if you never set foot there. They came to you, not the other way around.
reply
Nah fuck that.
reply
If it’s legal to eat babies in a country, does it make it morally ok to do it too while visiting?
reply
Then Meta should exit that country.
reply
Meta / Facebook would happily sell advertising for baby eat restaurants and cook books. It is about profit not morality nor even being a good human being.

Need to maximum profits for the share holders. Modern day large scale companies follow the Friedman doctrine, not human decency. [0]. They need that fix of infinite growth, which by doing so become cancerous to society.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

reply
If they had a moral compass. They’ve proven time and again they don’t.
reply
Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with. But Meta doesn't have a moral compass.
reply
> Meta should exit the US too because the US does {x} that I don't agree with.

This can be a real argument and conversation but we would need to know what {x} is and the causal chain that leads the world to be better after Meta leaves the US.

reply
I agree it can be a real argument.

The question is, who determines whether Meta should exit the US? Is it @ornornor? Hacker News? The Guardian? Europeans? Saudis?

If it's any of the above, I think Meta would have needed to exit the US market a while ago. ;)

reply
> But Meta doesn't have a moral compass.

Exactly.

reply
deleted
reply