What other moral standard is there besides laws? Is it that the laws of non-tyrannical countries should override those of tyrannical ones? How do you decide tyrannicalness? Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing? Great firewalls are the solution when nobody can agree with each other across borders but that's a pity.
> Or should internet companies decide what should be allowed in other countries despite those countries and their populations disagreeing?
Internet companies (like all companies) can and indeed must choose how they behave. "We follow all laws inside each country" is one such choice, but it's not a special privileged choice that absolves the company of criticism for its behavior.
That's just a snapshot of popular western liberal morals of the time. They also took a pretty good stab at it in the Quran and Hadiths. Both moral standards are still very popular yet they contradict each other. Is Islam wrong or is western liberalism wrong? Should a country with one type of society coerce the other into compliance?
I'm afraid I don't have the answer as to the right balance of belief, force, and consensus it takes for a single society to get along, let alone multiple ones with each other. When I've got that sorted, I'll drop a tweet or something.
> What other moral standard is there besides laws?
To be honest, you could restrict your compliance to only the laws of the country you're based in. American companies follow American laws, etc. Then move your company to where you most agree with the laws.
Perhaps do not have an office in that country. As for employees, that is their concern. Ideally the country is not willing to punish the family members of employees of companies that do not follow its draconian laws, but we know some do, such as China. Regardless, that is not a reason to capitulate; if you do so, you are effectively enabling state-backed extortion.
The uncorrupted law would be a good start.
I'd bet 3:1 that what Erdogan is doing is illegal according to Turkish law as interpreted by a neutral and reasonable judge, but he's doing it anyway. Most countries' laws are much more agreeable than what the government actually does.
It's worse because it hands repressive authorities a much more powerful tool of mind control than what they had before. More powerful because targeted, hard to detect and even harder to prove.
It is when you get a letter from the government telling you to do that on whatever pretext which doesn't matter at that point because you either comply with the government requests, or have to leave the country otherwise they risk banning, fines or imprisonment/asset seizing.
Social media companies aren't gonna take a foreign government to court to arbitrate requests in order to protect a citizen since the law is always on the side of the government as they're the ones making it and enforcing it.
The EU and EU members also tell X to ban certain political topics they dislike under various pretexts, and X always complies without question. Like I was sending a friend from Germany a clip on X of Ukrainian recruiters kidnapping a guy off the street and throwing him in a van but surprise, my friend couldn't watch it as the video was banned in Germany but not in my EU country. What German law was it breaking? I don't know, it didn't say, but it doesn't really matter since any government makes up the speech rules as they go and uses selective enforcement on the basis of "for my friends anything, for my enemies the law" so every government practices its own version of domestic censorship in order to maintain its power.
Watch out, there is no reliable Mouse Model for Alzheimer's. I was deeply involved with mouse models at some point before quitting my phd in neuroscience and I quite remember that.
> Lithium was the only metal that differed significantly between people with and without mild cognitive impairment, often a precursor to Alzheimer’s disease.
Not a causative finding in humans but darn interesting
Wild mice do not get AD. Even if you let them achieve old age they do not develop the same brain plaques or tangles that are linked to Alzheimers.
Even if they did you'd have to run huge samples then do post testing necropsies to see which mice had AD which which didn't, then filter your data, then try to find results in what remains.
Otherwise you can inject the mice with a chemical known to cause AD, which is not reliable on it's own, so you can get genetically modified mice which express _some_ of the known plaques and misfolds that are associated with human AD.
Animal testing is still, largely, a very unethical and cruel affair. AD testing in mice is especially fraught with hazard.
If you believe the paper, the authors were able to create symptoms and plaques similar to AD just by reducing lithium levels in the diet of these mice.
It's like kind of challenging to prove this kind of negative, and the supposed proof here comprises no more than pedigreed words on a page, but here consider the section "What constitutes a good model for AD?": https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-01...
