4 ms·

There is a horrible story in the book “Googled” by Ken Auletta. There is this panel at Davos in 1998, and a couple of executives at Google are there, along a fe

by Top19 9y ago

There is a horrible story in the book “Googled” by Ken Auletta. There is this panel at Davos in 1998, and a couple of executives at Google are there, along a few pseudo-intellectuals of the digerati like Mary Meeker and Esther Dyson. At the end of their speech where they talk about how blah blah amazing the world is going to be, the only one who stands up and says no this is bullshit, the web isn’t about serving the individual, and letting them be whatever or have whomever choosing what can happen to them, it’s about serving society, is the ambassador from IRAN. I felt sick the rest of the day about how right he was, above all these supposed experts, so long ago. I looked it up and it’s page 331 in the paperback for the full story, or just look for the only page-mention of “Esther Dyson” in the index.

woah 9y ago
Huh?
kobeya 9y ago
I’m not sure the ambassador meant what you seem to imply.
Bucephalus355 9y ago
I think the point of this comment is that the only one with either the foresight or the courage to stand up to Google at the time, and to take a position that a lot of people in the US now have, was an Iranian government official. Because of so much bad history, bad relations, and bad portrayal of Iran this is ironic, and suggests either a deeper wisdom on their side, or even more likely, a better familiarity with tyranny. If anything the ambassador should have seen its vast surveillance potential, but still he spoke out against the company.
- fit2rule 9y ago
  .. it also highlights the relative naivete - nay, ignorance - of many in the West for just how close we live to despotism, tyranny and corruption in our own sphere, and - more importantly - just how rapidly these failings can be exploited by institutions with nefarious intentions. We in the West have got to stop it with the moral superiority/manifest destiny, and start taking a good look at what it is we're doing to make the future worse, not better. If Iran can point it out, we most certainly can see it for ourselves - but of course we have to get past the superiority hubris which disallows any honest discourse on the subject of how our 'superior' technological societies are actually enslaving us all, not making us better. Case in point - so far in this thread, nobody has had the temerity to point out that Western hubris is the real enemy here.
samastur 9y ago
World Economic Forum is in January. Google was founded in September of 1998. It is difficult to imagine it had executives that would be invited to WEF at that time and certainly nobody feared it yet. I am actually old enough to remember using it in early days and while it was great, it certainly was very much an underdog. Interesting story otherwise.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  It's not clear that Google or its representatives wwere present, that Iran was the only challenger, or that Auletta's point was social vs. ndividual benefit: Not surprising, many governments are hostile to the idea of a free and open Web that Google advances, believing their national values--or the governing regime -- are threatened. I soured on attending the World Economic Forum in Davos several years ago because I found too many panels there to be insufferably polite and boring--designed to bestow backslaps on corporate and government attendees. But what is mind stretching about Davos, and different from most conferences, is that attendees come from all over the world and bring with them different sets of values and assumptions about the meaning of words. I remember a panel in the late nineties moderated by Esther Dyson, an early champion of the Internet. She opened by extolling the democratic values -- freedom, liberty, access to all information -- advanced by the Web. The former foreign minister of Denmark chimed in with his agreement, emphasizing that the Web gave individuals more freedom. He and Dyson thought they were taking the unassailable moral high ground. For the next several minutes, they sat slack-jawed as Singapore's ambassador to the United States challenged them. He said his government licensed Internet use with the idea that the Web must serve society, not the individual. "By licensing you are asking for responsible use," he said. An Egyptian diplomat educated in America chimed his agreement. He favored regulating "human dignity" situations, such as expressions that might be construed as "racist." He urged the adoption of international standards to prevent freedom of speech from being too free. Astonished, Dyson and the former foreign minister challenged these ideas as threats to "liberal values." "I am not a liberal," a member of the Iranian Parliament shot back, declaring that his government opposed the "pollution" of Western democratic values spread over the Web. "A nonliberal system does not equal intolerance," he said, explaining that his country favored "community" over "individual" values. This exchange was a reminder that "common values" are not always common, and that Google, whose mission is to share and make the world's information accessible, will always have government bears to contend with.

by Top19 9y ago

woah 9y ago

Huh?

kobeya 9y ago

I’m not sure the ambassador meant what you seem to imply.

Bucephalus355 9y ago

I think the point of this comment is that the only one with either the foresight or the courage to stand up to Google at the time, and to take a position that a lot of people in the US now have, was an Iranian government official. Because of so much bad history, bad relations, and bad portrayal of Iran this is ironic, and suggests either a deeper wisdom on their side, or even more likely, a better familiarity with tyranny. If anything the ambassador should have seen its vast surveillance potential, but still he spoke out against the company.

fit2rule 9y ago
.. it also highlights the relative naivete - nay, ignorance - of many in the West for just how close we live to despotism, tyranny and corruption in our own sphere, and - more importantly - just how rapidly these failings can be exploited by institutions with nefarious intentions. We in the West have got to stop it with the moral superiority/manifest destiny, and start taking a good look at what it is we're doing to make the future worse, not better. If Iran can point it out, we most certainly can see it for ourselves - but of course we have to get past the superiority hubris which disallows any honest discourse on the subject of how our 'superior' technological societies are actually enslaving us all, not making us better. Case in point - so far in this thread, nobody has had the temerity to point out that Western hubris is the real enemy here.

samastur 9y ago

World Economic Forum is in January. Google was founded in September of 1998. It is difficult to imagine it had executives that would be invited to WEF at that time and certainly nobody feared it yet. I am actually old enough to remember using it in early days and while it was great, it certainly was very much an underdog. Interesting story otherwise.

dredmorbius 9y ago
It's not clear that Google or its representatives wwere present, that Iran was the only challenger, or that Auletta's point was social vs. ndividual benefit: Not surprising, many governments are hostile to the idea of a free and open Web that Google advances, believing their national values--or the governing regime -- are threatened. I soured on attending the World Economic Forum in Davos several years ago because I found too many panels there to be insufferably polite and boring--designed to bestow backslaps on corporate and government attendees. But what is mind stretching about Davos, and different from most conferences, is that attendees come from all over the world and bring with them different sets of values and assumptions about the meaning of words. I remember a panel in the late nineties moderated by Esther Dyson, an early champion of the Internet. She opened by extolling the democratic values -- freedom, liberty, access to all information -- advanced by the Web. The former foreign minister of Denmark chimed in with his agreement, emphasizing that the Web gave individuals more freedom. He and Dyson thought they were taking the unassailable moral high ground. For the next several minutes, they sat slack-jawed as Singapore's ambassador to the United States challenged them. He said his government licensed Internet use with the idea that the Web must serve society, not the individual. "By licensing you are asking for responsible use," he said. An Egyptian diplomat educated in America chimed his agreement. He favored regulating "human dignity" situations, such as expressions that might be construed as "racist." He urged the adoption of international standards to prevent freedom of speech from being too free. Astonished, Dyson and the former foreign minister challenged these ideas as threats to "liberal values." "I am not a liberal," a member of the Iranian Parliament shot back, declaring that his government opposed the "pollution" of Western democratic values spread over the Web. "A nonliberal system does not equal intolerance," he said, explaining that his country favored "community" over "individual" values. This exchange was a reminder that "common values" are not always common, and that Google, whose mission is to share and make the world's information accessible, will always have government bears to contend with.