3 ms·

>Google fights major world powers every day That's right, if by 'fight' you mean following rules laid out in countries that it operates in. If the rules are co

>Google fights major world powers every day That's right, if by 'fight' you mean following rules laid out in countries that it operates in. If the rules are completely skewed against them (and other foreign companies) as they are in China, they have no recourse other than to appeal to their government to lobby on their behalf. Facebook is in a similar position with respect to Russian interference. The narrative pushed by people like Kara Swisher of Recode is that Facebook should have fought a major world power with limitless resources for cyber attacks and because they didn't they are responsible for the damage, instead of demanding to know why the previous and present American administrations allowed an American company and public be harassed by a belligerent foreign power. >Google can simply choose not to partner with repressive regimes in enabling and legitimizing censorship and mass surveillance. And you can choose not to buy Chinese-made products and thereby no longer support and legitimize a repressive regime ... but hey, here we are.

panarky 8y ago
> following rules laid out in countries that it operates in Exactly my point. Google can choose not to operate in countries where the rules are too egregiously antithetical to their mission. > Facebook should have fought a major world power Facebook is responsible for the damage because Facebook built the tools that enabled bad actors to hack democracies and Facebook profited from it (in the short term). Google is in a similar position. Should they build the tools that enable systematic repression and profit from it? Sure, they can claim they're "only following orders" but when has that ever worked out well?
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >Google can choose not to operate in countries where the rules are too egregiously antithetical to their mission. I'm all about fairness. Right now, Chinese companies have way more freedom in how they operate in West, than Western companies have in China. All I argued is that is fair for Western governments to put pressure and stand-up for fairness. >Facebook is responsible for the damage because Facebook built the tools that enabled bad actors to hack democracies and Facebook profited from it (in the short term) Yeah. They really dropped the ball on that one eh .. how could they have not foreseen being targeted by a major world power with limitless military, cyber and espionage resources. Are you nuts? Tech companies building photo-sharing social networks for grandma should not be left to deal with blatant attacks from belligerent world powers. Defense is the primary function of the nation state, not Facebook! >ure, they can claim they're "only following orders" but when has that ever worked out well? What are you talking about? What orders?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

panarky 8y ago

> following rules laid out in countries that it operates in Exactly my point. Google can choose not to operate in countries where the rules are too egregiously antithetical to their mission. > Facebook should have fought a major world power Facebook is responsible for the damage because Facebook built the tools that enabled bad actors to hack democracies and Facebook profited from it (in the short term). Google is in a similar position. Should they build the tools that enable systematic repression and profit from it? Sure, they can claim they're "only following orders" but when has that ever worked out well?

macspoofing 8y ago
>Google can choose not to operate in countries where the rules are too egregiously antithetical to their mission. I'm all about fairness. Right now, Chinese companies have way more freedom in how they operate in West, than Western companies have in China. All I argued is that is fair for Western governments to put pressure and stand-up for fairness. >Facebook is responsible for the damage because Facebook built the tools that enabled bad actors to hack democracies and Facebook profited from it (in the short term) Yeah. They really dropped the ball on that one eh .. how could they have not foreseen being targeted by a major world power with limitless military, cyber and espionage resources. Are you nuts? Tech companies building photo-sharing social networks for grandma should not be left to deal with blatant attacks from belligerent world powers. Defense is the primary function of the nation state, not Facebook! >ure, they can claim they're "only following orders" but when has that ever worked out well? What are you talking about? What orders?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]