4 ms·
It is sad that most people jump on the bandwagon without really grasping what Google is trying to accomplish. I think the author frames it pretty nicely toward
by invisible 16y ago
It is sad that most people jump on the bandwagon without really grasping what Google is trying to accomplish. I think the author frames it pretty nicely towards the end with, basically, if we don't play the game we won't get to make the rules. Google is trying to play the game - it has no incentive to NOT have neutrality on the Internet. Most of Google's best products have been start ups that they bought (and a lack of some neutrality on the Internet would put a damper on that).
Instead, we get cries of Google running afoul and that (somehow) every intellectual person at Google is now "evil" and bent on world domination.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoThis is called "being co-opted by the system". It's not evil in itself, but you no longer get to pretend to be idealistic once you've done it.
- invisible 16y agoI do not think that being realistic necessarily means being bad. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to get along and the world to be great without some abiding laws that those involved agree upon. The fact that things have been luckily good so far is really not the whole story. These carriers are itching to reduce network load, and without any rules they could begin making decisions to lower costs without directly harming customers. This could be very toxic for what the Internet stands for, and while it's unthinkable today it is possible in the future.
- philwelch 16y agoGoogle never said "Be idealistic." They said "Don't be evil." They lost any pretense of idealism when they expanded into China. That was a tough moral call. So was this. Some moral calls are tough to make, and maybe Google made the wrong calls, but there's a difference between "don't be evil" and "be idealistic and pure and unquestionable in your motives, and when it comes to the hard questions, just punt on them".