3 ms·

Like when Google left china.. that really showed them /s You know there are countries where Facebook does not operate.. local companies get easy funding to rec

Like when Google left china.. that really showed them /s You know there are countries where Facebook does not operate.. local companies get easy funding to recreate the service.. after all it's a proven business model The eu is certainly a big enough market to support a local version

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Maybe the EU is, but I doubt Germany is. In addition, Even though there is Baidu, it is preferable that the rest of the world can Google "Tianamen square" and get back something resembling the facts. If Google had used this logic of "well somebody else will do it anyway", the rest of us would have only seen what China permitted.
- FRex 9y ago
  This is such a dumb argument. Google already did and does censorship per country (including adhering to Chinese law back when they operated there) and so does their subsidiary YouTube (in regards to copyright, maybe in other areas too). At no point was "Tianmen square" search banned to "the rest of us" because of this. In EU it already censors some searches because of the "law to be forgotten". The technology to do this censorship without making any country adhere to law of any other country online is clearly feasible, seamless and even already in place and active.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  I wasnt advocating western companies compromise their values. I was saying if they withdraw, other companies will fill the void... so any pain that the people experience will be temporary and the western company will be forgotten. Just like Google was forgotten in China. Companies disappear for many reasons all the time. People dont go out and protest to change the laws.. they move on and find alternatives. That's not a call to abandon values. It's just an acknowledgement of reality and market forces. Just because someone else will do it, doesnt mean that you have to.
rl3 9y ago
The point is that in Western countries, their entire populations are already heavily invested in those services. Suddenly losing access would be unthinkable.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  Sure.. but dont you think Germans understand that their hate speech laws arent a simple black and white issue? that theyve made a compromise of their values because of their history with nazism and the wars that devastated their country. I think they know full well the compromise they've made. So if google disappeared tomorrow in Germany because of this law.. do you think they pick up their protest signs and start marching? Or do you think they understand it's more complex than that and the answer isn't that simple.. and because they are busy people, they type bing.com into their browser instead. Their history contributes directly toward their motivation to fight for a change in those laws (for the benefit of a foreign company I might add), and their willingness to use inferior alternatives. Given what they believe they are protecting against, I don't think they will bow to pressure easily.. they'll change them when they believe the threat is gone.
  - rl3 9y ago
    >... and because they are busy people, they type bing.com into their browser instead. All major tech companies accompany their services with user accounts that hold a treasure trove of personal information, and that users are likely to be invested in to some degree. Facebook (the subject of the article) happens to be the best example of this, because you can't simply go to some other site and have all your personal connections be present; the lock-in factor is very high there. Moreover, if tech companies coordinated their efforts, simply using the competitor as your example suggests would not work.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Maybe the EU is, but I doubt Germany is. In addition, Even though there is Baidu, it is preferable that the rest of the world can Google "Tianamen square" and get back something resembling the facts. If Google had used this logic of "well somebody else will do it anyway", the rest of us would have only seen what China permitted.

FRex 9y ago
This is such a dumb argument. Google already did and does censorship per country (including adhering to Chinese law back when they operated there) and so does their subsidiary YouTube (in regards to copyright, maybe in other areas too). At no point was "Tianmen square" search banned to "the rest of us" because of this. In EU it already censors some searches because of the "law to be forgotten". The technology to do this censorship without making any country adhere to law of any other country online is clearly feasible, seamless and even already in place and active.
rgbrenner 9y ago
I wasnt advocating western companies compromise their values. I was saying if they withdraw, other companies will fill the void... so any pain that the people experience will be temporary and the western company will be forgotten. Just like Google was forgotten in China. Companies disappear for many reasons all the time. People dont go out and protest to change the laws.. they move on and find alternatives. That's not a call to abandon values. It's just an acknowledgement of reality and market forces. Just because someone else will do it, doesnt mean that you have to.

rl3 9y ago

The point is that in Western countries, their entire populations are already heavily invested in those services. Suddenly losing access would be unthinkable.

rgbrenner 9y ago
Sure.. but dont you think Germans understand that their hate speech laws arent a simple black and white issue? that theyve made a compromise of their values because of their history with nazism and the wars that devastated their country. I think they know full well the compromise they've made. So if google disappeared tomorrow in Germany because of this law.. do you think they pick up their protest signs and start marching? Or do you think they understand it's more complex than that and the answer isn't that simple.. and because they are busy people, they type bing.com into their browser instead. Their history contributes directly toward their motivation to fight for a change in those laws (for the benefit of a foreign company I might add), and their willingness to use inferior alternatives. Given what they believe they are protecting against, I don't think they will bow to pressure easily.. they'll change them when they believe the threat is gone.
- rl3 9y ago
  >... and because they are busy people, they type bing.com into their browser instead. All major tech companies accompany their services with user accounts that hold a treasure trove of personal information, and that users are likely to be invested in to some degree. Facebook (the subject of the article) happens to be the best example of this, because you can't simply go to some other site and have all your personal connections be present; the lock-in factor is very high there. Moreover, if tech companies coordinated their efforts, simply using the competitor as your example suggests would not work.