4 ms·

Complete and total nonsense. While the US Government has severe issues it is not by any stretch equivalent to the Chinese Government in its repression of human

by poutine 17y ago

Complete and total nonsense. While the US Government has severe issues it is not by any stretch equivalent to the Chinese Government in its repression of human rights and freedoms and censorship of the Internet.

grandalf 17y ago
Censorship is censorship. It's either bad or it's not. If Google truly cares about the issue of censorship it should act consistently, not just try to find an area in which opposition to censorship is unanimous among people in the US and make a big stink about how bold it is being. This is a business decision. Try posting a video of a naked 17.5 year old person on youtube and see how long it takes before it is taken down. Try posting a video slide show of sensitive wikileaks docs and see how long the video stays up. Your argument also falls apart in terms of the humanitarian argument. Search increases freedom and thus is helpful to humanitarian goals. If Google makes a decision that results in less search, the decision results in less freedom. Similarly, if you are running late to an event and you drive 100 MPH on the highway and you get pulled over for speeding, you might actually get there later than if you'd just driven the speed limit. If you want to optimize within the law you don't speed. Google is doing the equivalent of going 100 MPH and then blaming the cop.
- orangecat 17y ago
  The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else." The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..." -- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
  - grandalf 17y ago
    I love this quote. I think most people apply the Sophisticate's error to China by supposing that since both the US and China are different shades of gray, they may then decide arbitrarily to critique China... similarly: We saw it manifested in yesterday's post - the one who believed that odds of two to the power of seven hundred and fifty millon to one, against, meant "there was still a chance". All probabilities, to him, were simply "uncertain" and that meant he was licensed to ignore them if he pleased. If you care about censorship, you are not licensed to ignore censorship in the US just because both are gray. If you care about humanitarian abuses, you are not licensed to ignore them in the US just because China may commit worse ones.
    - orangecat 17y ago
      If you care about censorship, you are not licensed to ignore censorship in the US just because both are gray. If you care about humanitarian abuses, you are not licensed to ignore them in the US just because China may commit worse ones. You are however "licensed" to focus more on China, on the grounds that their abuses are orders of magnitude worse.
      - grandalf 17y ago
        I challenge that assertion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1217082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1217082
grandalf 17y ago
My argument doesn't entail that the Chinese and US governments are equal. Google could also decide to only partially censor google.cn, perhaps removing the Tienanmen square stuff but leaving in some of the Falun Dafa links. That Google makes big, bold moves in China and yet does NOTHING about the US... it could even host SOME wikileaks content... suggests hypocrisy or at least a business focus rather than a humanitarian one. I don't think it's a coincidence that Google acts bold in the one market in the world where it is losing... allowing it to leave gracefully. I'm half tempted to write some sort of wikileaks mirror on app engine and see how long it stays up.
- poutine 17y ago
  Well yes, of course Google is a self-interested corporation whose likely reasons for acting are much more complicated than the public story. All the do no evil stuff is marketing and self delusion by Google'ers. Does this surprise you?
  - grandalf 17y ago
    You should explain why you applaud Google and yet demand nothing of Google for the anti-censorship cause when it pertains to the US. My hypotheses would be: - you do not like China's regime and so any anti-china propaganda is good. - you feel that all US censorship laws are good, thus you have no issue whatsoever with the US approach to Wikileaks. - You think that all governments censor a little, but only the ones that censor a lot are bad.
    - poutine 17y ago
      I did not and would not applaud Google. They're a massive and soul-less multinational with far too much influence over the Internet. You are mostly incorrect in your hypotheses: - While I indeed do not like the Chinese regime I see lots of anti Chinese propaganda that I do not like. - I do not like any censorship whatsoever, and thus any attempt by any government to censor to any extent is bad and should not be tolerated. - Wikileaks deserves to be supported and is indeed a great service. I am a non-American westerner that has lived in China for several years and have had personal experience with the censorship there and the way that nationalism and controlled information shapes and corrupts people's minds. It's awful. I take issue with your initial statement to try to draw equivalence between China and the US. It isn't equivalent at all and drawing any equivalence detracts from the horrible consequences that the Chinese regime has on its people and the world.

by poutine 17y ago

grandalf 17y ago

Censorship is censorship. It's either bad or it's not. If Google truly cares about the issue of censorship it should act consistently, not just try to find an area in which opposition to censorship is unanimous among people in the US and make a big stink about how bold it is being. This is a business decision. Try posting a video of a naked 17.5 year old person on youtube and see how long it takes before it is taken down. Try posting a video slide show of sensitive wikileaks docs and see how long the video stays up. Your argument also falls apart in terms of the humanitarian argument. Search increases freedom and thus is helpful to humanitarian goals. If Google makes a decision that results in less search, the decision results in less freedom. Similarly, if you are running late to an event and you drive 100 MPH on the highway and you get pulled over for speeding, you might actually get there later than if you'd just driven the speed limit. If you want to optimize within the law you don't speed. Google is doing the equivalent of going 100 MPH and then blaming the cop.

orangecat 17y ago
The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else." The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..." -- Marc Stiegler, David's Sling http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
- grandalf 17y ago
  I love this quote. I think most people apply the Sophisticate's error to China by supposing that since both the US and China are different shades of gray, they may then decide arbitrarily to critique China... similarly: We saw it manifested in yesterday's post - the one who believed that odds of two to the power of seven hundred and fifty millon to one, against, meant "there was still a chance". All probabilities, to him, were simply "uncertain" and that meant he was licensed to ignore them if he pleased. If you care about censorship, you are not licensed to ignore censorship in the US just because both are gray. If you care about humanitarian abuses, you are not licensed to ignore them in the US just because China may commit worse ones.
  - orangecat 17y ago
    If you care about censorship, you are not licensed to ignore censorship in the US just because both are gray. If you care about humanitarian abuses, you are not licensed to ignore them in the US just because China may commit worse ones. You are however "licensed" to focus more on China, on the grounds that their abuses are orders of magnitude worse.
    - grandalf 17y ago
      I challenge that assertion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1217082 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1217082

grandalf 17y ago

My argument doesn't entail that the Chinese and US governments are equal. Google could also decide to only partially censor google.cn, perhaps removing the Tienanmen square stuff but leaving in some of the Falun Dafa links. That Google makes big, bold moves in China and yet does NOTHING about the US... it could even host SOME wikileaks content... suggests hypocrisy or at least a business focus rather than a humanitarian one. I don't think it's a coincidence that Google acts bold in the one market in the world where it is losing... allowing it to leave gracefully. I'm half tempted to write some sort of wikileaks mirror on app engine and see how long it stays up.

poutine 17y ago
Well yes, of course Google is a self-interested corporation whose likely reasons for acting are much more complicated than the public story. All the do no evil stuff is marketing and self delusion by Google'ers. Does this surprise you?
- grandalf 17y ago
  You should explain why you applaud Google and yet demand nothing of Google for the anti-censorship cause when it pertains to the US. My hypotheses would be: - you do not like China's regime and so any anti-china propaganda is good. - you feel that all US censorship laws are good, thus you have no issue whatsoever with the US approach to Wikileaks. - You think that all governments censor a little, but only the ones that censor a lot are bad.
  - poutine 17y ago
    I did not and would not applaud Google. They're a massive and soul-less multinational with far too much influence over the Internet. You are mostly incorrect in your hypotheses: - While I indeed do not like the Chinese regime I see lots of anti Chinese propaganda that I do not like. - I do not like any censorship whatsoever, and thus any attempt by any government to censor to any extent is bad and should not be tolerated. - Wikileaks deserves to be supported and is indeed a great service. I am a non-American westerner that has lived in China for several years and have had personal experience with the censorship there and the way that nationalism and controlled information shapes and corrupts people's minds. It's awful. I take issue with your initial statement to try to draw equivalence between China and the US. It isn't equivalent at all and drawing any equivalence detracts from the horrible consequences that the Chinese regime has on its people and the world.