I pretty much agree with you on both counts, but as a for-profit entity,
it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing." If
it costs "X" to fight it through the courts, and costs "Y" to implement
and maintain the censorship/court-orders, then "Y" has to be greater
than "X" (plus long term consequences) for the math to work. If "Y" is
substantial, the legal fight can be re-framed as an unfair burden, so
there is now no need to fight the initial issue through the courts or
endure cost "X".
but as a for-profit entity, it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing."
Yes and No, I think.
Yes, a for-profit company is generally required to act in the service of their "financial math". But nothing says they can only consider the immediate short-term (i.e. next quarter) for this math. That short-term-thinking-only is a relatively new concept and the smarter companies don't buy into it.
Consider all the money companies spend on political contributions, appointing former politicians to their board, and paid lobbying in Washington DC. There's usually not an immediate payoff expected for that. They just know it pays well in the long term to fertilize the field, so to speak.
