3 ms·

If Google's doing something they don't want anyone to regulate, maybe they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

darawk 9y ago
There are plenty of instances where someone may want to avoid regulation for purely legitimate reasons. Regulation is an added cost. Sometimes that cost is justified, sometimes it's not. But whether or not it is justified, the cost is present. So, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for a company to want to avoid being regulated without having malicious intent.
- arctux 9y ago
  I think he's referencing >If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
  - SoMisanthrope 9y ago
    Schmidt sounds Orwellian.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
kobeya 9y ago
Regulation is not always beneficial.
bobdole1234 9y ago
You mean like running a wildly popular service that has technology nobody else has come anywhere close to matching? What a bunch of monsters.
- musage 9y ago
  Since that was a rephrasing of Schmidt's > If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. let's apply your "rebuttal" to that then, too: He means like smuggling food to political prisoners in an oppressive regime? Like hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? An abused child writing a letter to the police? Or even just a desperate prisoner writing a secret diary to hang on to their sanity or memories? What a bunch of monsters. [super dramatic pause] Even if you restricted it to wanting "literally nobody" to know (which is nonsense, especially in the context of online communications, so that's just some sophistry on Schmidt's behalf to be corrected by the reader), there's plenty examples to be found. Compared to all that, bleh to a search engine. Yeah they're useful, but if I had to pick between either using only search, or only word of mouth, link lists and bookmarks, and having the comparison, I'd use the latter. There is no such substitute for privacy. I would even say your "right" to their services doesn't outweigh the actual rights of others and yourself to liberty and dignity. I'm not saying they necessarily clash, but insofar they do, those are the priorities. Wildly popular, schmildly schmopular. If what some people like is such a great measurement, why are they liking such bad things?
  - bobdole1234 9y ago
    I suspect you're too young to remember what searching was like before Google.

There are plenty of instances where someone may want to avoid regulation for purely legitimate reasons. Regulation is an added cost. Sometimes that cost is justified, sometimes it's not. But whether or not it is justified, the cost is present. So, it is perfectly possible and reasonable for a company to want to avoid being regulated without having malicious intent.

arctux 9y ago
I think he's referencing >If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/07/schmidt_on_privacy/
- SoMisanthrope 9y ago
  Schmidt sounds Orwellian.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

kobeya 9y ago

Regulation is not always beneficial.

bobdole1234 9y ago

You mean like running a wildly popular service that has technology nobody else has come anywhere close to matching? What a bunch of monsters.

musage 9y ago
Since that was a rephrasing of Schmidt's > If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. let's apply your "rebuttal" to that then, too: He means like smuggling food to political prisoners in an oppressive regime? Like hiding Jews in Nazi Germany? An abused child writing a letter to the police? Or even just a desperate prisoner writing a secret diary to hang on to their sanity or memories? What a bunch of monsters. [super dramatic pause] Even if you restricted it to wanting "literally nobody" to know (which is nonsense, especially in the context of online communications, so that's just some sophistry on Schmidt's behalf to be corrected by the reader), there's plenty examples to be found. Compared to all that, bleh to a search engine. Yeah they're useful, but if I had to pick between either using only search, or only word of mouth, link lists and bookmarks, and having the comparison, I'd use the latter. There is no such substitute for privacy. I would even say your "right" to their services doesn't outweigh the actual rights of others and yourself to liberty and dignity. I'm not saying they necessarily clash, but insofar they do, those are the priorities. Wildly popular, schmildly schmopular. If what some people like is such a great measurement, why are they liking such bad things?
- bobdole1234 9y ago
  I suspect you're too young to remember what searching was like before Google.