4 ms·

In this particular case, the whole thing is probably more complicated than what it seems: it's not entirely clear that Google chooses to is another matter. As

In this particular case, the whole thing is probably more complicated than what it seems: it's not entirely clear that Google chooses to is another matter. As a reference: "The Digital Disruption - Connectivity and the Diffusion of Power" by Eric Schmidt & Jared Cohen [http://archive.is/R13l2 http://archive.is/R13l2] In the past people interpreted the article as "US companies control a large proportion of the internet infrastructure, the government can use this as a foreign policy tool". If you're a foreigner this may not sound cool.. It is natural for a company that maintains complex and entrenched relationships with a government, to influence and being influenced, at home and abroad.

kodablah 9y ago
Sure. But that doesn't change the common moral stance that one has of "X government should not be able to force a company to do things outside of X's jurisdiction" for any values of X, even if that is at odds with what currently happens today. And some people's morals may extend the quote to "if company is not headquartered in X" or "if company does not do business in X" or whatever they may think. But the conversation on the morals themselves cannot be had if all we do is replace values of X for three reasons: 1) it assumes people have inconsistent morals, and 2) no two situations are the same and 3) the conversation is diluted. To your broader point about US internet hegemony and government influence, I think it doesn't sound cool to many regardless of where they reside. If we must draw equivalence for history's sake here, one could look at the dissemination of culture over and over again and protectionist measures by the encroached upon in order to retain power, often against the will of the citizens. Over time, people will do what they want, in the meantime all most want is those with power to limit themselves. It also has value to recognize the environments that foster these cultural innovations and fight fire with fire instead of power.
- tgragnato 9y ago
  I agree on the ideal of extra jurisdictional non-interference, but I consider it an ideal. Realistically, a global intercommunication network involves risks. Risks that people should have the chance to manage. When companies and governments take away the freedom of self-determination from people, then the question becomes more complex. This is why, despite agreeing with the moral stance, I believe that Google has been put in a difficult position, and do not need a priori defence. Freedom of information is an important issue, but I prefer to turn my attention to less controversial actors.

kodablah 9y ago

Sure. But that doesn't change the common moral stance that one has of "X government should not be able to force a company to do things outside of X's jurisdiction" for any values of X, even if that is at odds with what currently happens today. And some people's morals may extend the quote to "if company is not headquartered in X" or "if company does not do business in X" or whatever they may think. But the conversation on the morals themselves cannot be had if all we do is replace values of X for three reasons: 1) it assumes people have inconsistent morals, and 2) no two situations are the same and 3) the conversation is diluted. To your broader point about US internet hegemony and government influence, I think it doesn't sound cool to many regardless of where they reside. If we must draw equivalence for history's sake here, one could look at the dissemination of culture over and over again and protectionist measures by the encroached upon in order to retain power, often against the will of the citizens. Over time, people will do what they want, in the meantime all most want is those with power to limit themselves. It also has value to recognize the environments that foster these cultural innovations and fight fire with fire instead of power.

tgragnato 9y ago
I agree on the ideal of extra jurisdictional non-interference, but I consider it an ideal. Realistically, a global intercommunication network involves risks. Risks that people should have the chance to manage. When companies and governments take away the freedom of self-determination from people, then the question becomes more complex. This is why, despite agreeing with the moral stance, I believe that Google has been put in a difficult position, and do not need a priori defence. Freedom of information is an important issue, but I prefer to turn my attention to less controversial actors.