9 ms·

"Many people inside and outside the company consider government censorship to be a human-rights violation." It's right there in the US Constitution Bill of Rig

"Many people inside and outside the company consider government censorship to be a human-rights violation." It's right there in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.

r00fus 8y ago
Well, Human Rights are supposed to be a) transnational, b) inalienable c) an inherent trait of being "human". Therefore more important/vital, yet given the transnational nature, also less difficult to "enforce".
labbyz 8y ago
There is also the pledge by Google to not build AI weapons. A censored search engine is a gray PSYOP weapon. > Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
mirimir 8y ago
Sure, but that doesn't apply to China. And neither does it apply to the EU, regarding "the right to be forgotten". Personally, I'd rather see something like Google that operated outside all jurisdictions, and was entirely uncensored. And not advertising driven. But so it goes.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  It applies everywhere if you believe what the Declaration of Independence says about certain rights being "inalienable".
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Huh? Let me get this straight. You argue that these US documents apply in China? That's quite the claim. Believers in the proto-US fought a war against England over those issues, after all. And that ain't gonna happen in China.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      The Declaration of Independence doesn't legally "apply" in the U.S. either. It's a historic document making certain philosophical arguments (inalienable rights, right to overthrow tyrannical government, etc.) and then applies that philosophy to a particular historical context. And, yes, inalienable rights apply in China. If it is good and proper to be offended by how someone is treated regardless of legal context, there is an implicit inalienable right. Ad absurdum, we expect freedom from rape, justice broadly defined, freedom from genocide, and many other things. If Elbonia passed a law saying lynching of minorities was OK, they'd be wrong. That's what makes the relevant rights inalienable.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      > You argue that these US documents apply in China? Not at all. I argued that certain human rights are inherent to being human. The US Constitution does not invent or bestow those rights, it recognizes and guarantees them. (And yes, the US government has fallen short of that now and then.)
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Yes, I get that. And I agree with that. Still, as much as I (and arguably, most of those reading this) agree with that claim, the fact remains that the Chinese government (and arguably, much if not most, of China's population) do not. And there are norms and laws there which are inconsistent with that claim. And furthermore, that situation is certainly not unique to China. Also, there's the internationally recognized expectation that businesses are subject to at least the laws of places where they do business. And governments are not shy about enforcing their laws. So if Google wants to do business in China, it must accept Chinese jurisdiction. Just as Google must comply with EU regulations and court orders in order to do business there. And yes, I get the argument that Google ought to stay out of China, on moral grounds. Back when South Africa practiced apartheid, I would have expected Google to shun that market. However, I don't believe that Google has exited the Israeli market, in protest over human rights abuse against Palestinians. Or more generally, against a theocratic government that discriminates against all non Jews. Also, Google is clearly cooperating with the EU regarding the "right to be forgotten". On its face, that violates the right to free speech. Although an exception could be justified by other enumerated human rights, that seems inconsistent with libel precedents in the US. Finally, if we expect Google to stay out of China on moral grounds, what about all of the other firms that have invested in Chinese businesses, buy products from them, and otherwise participate in the Chinese economy? Why isn't there pressure to divest and sanction, as there has been regarding North Korea, Iran, Russia, and so on? As there was regarding South Africa, during apartheid? Why isn't there pressure for Apple etc to source components elsewhere? What's so special about Google, in this regard?
zerealshadowban 8y ago
Maybe we should parse this slightly differently -- what do these people think of corporation-operated censorship that is designed to exactly please a generally oppressive government? In 1964 America, some types of rights-violating discrimination that (as generally understood due to the victory of the Union in the Civil War) the government ought not to engage in, were suddenly also banned from the sphere of corporate activity. [1] I wasn't born at the time, but I understand that there were many US locales where the discrimination forbidden to government had been retained, and remained widespread, via delegation to businesses. Are we headed to a similar battle around online free speech? I personally don't want Western businesses to help implement censorship in any country, whether express or local, whether administrative or corporate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  I certainly am concerned about media giants censoring material under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "fake news", "russian propaganda", or anything they imagine I am too tender to be trusted to view. That sort of thing has gone on throughout history (such as people who translated the Bible into English got burned at the stake), never with good results.

"Many people inside and outside the company consider government censorship to be a human-rights violation." It's right there in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.

r00fus 8y ago

Well, Human Rights are supposed to be a) transnational, b) inalienable c) an inherent trait of being "human". Therefore more important/vital, yet given the transnational nature, also less difficult to "enforce".

labbyz 8y ago

There is also the pledge by Google to not build AI weapons. A censored search engine is a gray PSYOP weapon. > Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

mirimir 8y ago

Sure, but that doesn't apply to China. And neither does it apply to the EU, regarding "the right to be forgotten". Personally, I'd rather see something like Google that operated outside all jurisdictions, and was entirely uncensored. And not advertising driven. But so it goes.

skookumchuck 8y ago
It applies everywhere if you believe what the Declaration of Independence says about certain rights being "inalienable".
- mirimir 8y ago
  Huh? Let me get this straight. You argue that these US documents apply in China? That's quite the claim. Believers in the proto-US fought a war against England over those issues, after all. And that ain't gonna happen in China.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    The Declaration of Independence doesn't legally "apply" in the U.S. either. It's a historic document making certain philosophical arguments (inalienable rights, right to overthrow tyrannical government, etc.) and then applies that philosophy to a particular historical context. And, yes, inalienable rights apply in China. If it is good and proper to be offended by how someone is treated regardless of legal context, there is an implicit inalienable right. Ad absurdum, we expect freedom from rape, justice broadly defined, freedom from genocide, and many other things. If Elbonia passed a law saying lynching of minorities was OK, they'd be wrong. That's what makes the relevant rights inalienable.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    > You argue that these US documents apply in China? Not at all. I argued that certain human rights are inherent to being human. The US Constitution does not invent or bestow those rights, it recognizes and guarantees them. (And yes, the US government has fallen short of that now and then.)
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, I get that. And I agree with that. Still, as much as I (and arguably, most of those reading this) agree with that claim, the fact remains that the Chinese government (and arguably, much if not most, of China's population) do not. And there are norms and laws there which are inconsistent with that claim. And furthermore, that situation is certainly not unique to China. Also, there's the internationally recognized expectation that businesses are subject to at least the laws of places where they do business. And governments are not shy about enforcing their laws. So if Google wants to do business in China, it must accept Chinese jurisdiction. Just as Google must comply with EU regulations and court orders in order to do business there. And yes, I get the argument that Google ought to stay out of China, on moral grounds. Back when South Africa practiced apartheid, I would have expected Google to shun that market. However, I don't believe that Google has exited the Israeli market, in protest over human rights abuse against Palestinians. Or more generally, against a theocratic government that discriminates against all non Jews. Also, Google is clearly cooperating with the EU regarding the "right to be forgotten". On its face, that violates the right to free speech. Although an exception could be justified by other enumerated human rights, that seems inconsistent with libel precedents in the US. Finally, if we expect Google to stay out of China on moral grounds, what about all of the other firms that have invested in Chinese businesses, buy products from them, and otherwise participate in the Chinese economy? Why isn't there pressure to divest and sanction, as there has been regarding North Korea, Iran, Russia, and so on? As there was regarding South Africa, during apartheid? Why isn't there pressure for Apple etc to source components elsewhere? What's so special about Google, in this regard?

zerealshadowban 8y ago

Maybe we should parse this slightly differently -- what do these people think of corporation-operated censorship that is designed to exactly please a generally oppressive government? In 1964 America, some types of rights-violating discrimination that (as generally understood due to the victory of the Union in the Civil War) the government ought not to engage in, were suddenly also banned from the sphere of corporate activity. [1] I wasn't born at the time, but I understand that there were many US locales where the discrimination forbidden to government had been retained, and remained widespread, via delegation to businesses. Are we headed to a similar battle around online free speech? I personally don't want Western businesses to help implement censorship in any country, whether express or local, whether administrative or corporate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

skookumchuck 8y ago
I certainly am concerned about media giants censoring material under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "fake news", "russian propaganda", or anything they imagine I am too tender to be trusted to view. That sort of thing has gone on throughout history (such as people who translated the Bible into English got burned at the stake), never with good results.