5 ms·

This is absurd. Why apply morals selectively to Google? Where were these organizations when Apple handed over Chinese iCloud operations to a government backed s

This is absurd. Why apply morals selectively to Google? Where were these organizations when Apple handed over Chinese iCloud operations to a government backed shell company, or recently removed hundreds of apps that facilitated bypassing the great firewall. There are scores of American companies operating in China, Microsoft even offered censorsed search, so why bully Google alone here? It's almost as if internal Google employees have lobbied their favorite charities to take a stance, or else ...

benchaney 8y ago
If you want to make a change, you have to start somewhere. There is nothing absurd about that.
- writepub 8y ago
  Of course it's absurd to ignore American companies of similar stature (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft,...) who set shop in China much much earlier, and selectively target Google. Provide one logical reason that can back such hypocrisy
godzillabrennus 8y ago
Why not start with google since they are the market leader? We should be taking a stand with all of our corporations.
- beaner 8y ago
  You shouldn't start with them because they have not started in China. Others have. This targeting is hypocritical. Especially for Apple, who promotes themselves as so privacy-focused. That was always a marketing gimmick, and this is part of the proof. Stop defending them and others by ignoring their actions.
ryandrake 8y ago
This argument is a simple and straightforward example of Whataboutism [1]. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  I think this is a perfectly appropriate critique regardless of the newly constructed "fallacy". If a problem is systemic, "whataboutism" is an appropriate critique (in lieu of being able to articulate the underlying issue) as it typically makes reference to something that is a populist concept, to be effective as a recognizable objection. In this case, the objection is apt and needs to be addressed with more than hand-waving because it's troubling. Saying "google is different because it helps shape culture" as opposed to Amazon's Chinese presence. Amazon's service is an opaque service-oriented mechanism...is an appropriate response.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    It’s not a rebuttal though. If I propose: “X is doing something bad and should stop.” And you respond with: “Y and Z are also doing that bad thing.” You’re neither denying X is doing the thing nor that it should stop. You’re not addressing the original proposal. I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.”
    - yourbandsucks 8y ago
      Except we never hear about Y and Z. Let's say you lived in the Jim Crow south, and noticed that a lot of laws were only enforced against black people, despite being broken by white people all the time. Is it whataboutism to complain? It's worth noting when different rules seem to apply depending on who's involved.
    - ArchTypical 8y ago
      > It’s not a rebuttal though. So what? Discussion doesn't consist solely of logical arguments (or arguments in total). There's a salient difference between "whataboutism" and a non sequitor. One has no way to continue the discussion (it changes to something else) and the other has an underlying set of issues that are likely beyond articulation of the poster, but exist nonetheless. > I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.” Then why not say that? The underlying issue is that there's reasons people are objecting to Google and not others. Responding with a dismissive reply devoid of content is a nonsequitor. Implying that the assertion is without merit because you object to the syntactical presentation, avoids the issues raised. e.g. Google helps steer culture and would necessarily have to actively enforce totalitarian and oppressive rules in China.
saas_co_de 8y ago
The other absurdity is the nerve of these western "human rights" organizations to believe that they should dictate morality and law for the entire world. China's censorship is no different than censorship of hate speech in the west. They have just as much right as us to decide what acceptable speech is for their country and they have just as much right as us to demand that businesses operating in their country follow the law.

benchaney 8y ago

If you want to make a change, you have to start somewhere. There is nothing absurd about that.

writepub 8y ago
Of course it's absurd to ignore American companies of similar stature (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft,...) who set shop in China much much earlier, and selectively target Google. Provide one logical reason that can back such hypocrisy

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Why not start with google since they are the market leader? We should be taking a stand with all of our corporations.

beaner 8y ago
You shouldn't start with them because they have not started in China. Others have. This targeting is hypocritical. Especially for Apple, who promotes themselves as so privacy-focused. That was always a marketing gimmick, and this is part of the proof. Stop defending them and others by ignoring their actions.

ryandrake 8y ago

This argument is a simple and straightforward example of Whataboutism [1]. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

ArchTypical 8y ago
I think this is a perfectly appropriate critique regardless of the newly constructed "fallacy". If a problem is systemic, "whataboutism" is an appropriate critique (in lieu of being able to articulate the underlying issue) as it typically makes reference to something that is a populist concept, to be effective as a recognizable objection. In this case, the objection is apt and needs to be addressed with more than hand-waving because it's troubling. Saying "google is different because it helps shape culture" as opposed to Amazon's Chinese presence. Amazon's service is an opaque service-oriented mechanism...is an appropriate response.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  It’s not a rebuttal though. If I propose: “X is doing something bad and should stop.” And you respond with: “Y and Z are also doing that bad thing.” You’re neither denying X is doing the thing nor that it should stop. You’re not addressing the original proposal. I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.”
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    Except we never hear about Y and Z. Let's say you lived in the Jim Crow south, and noticed that a lot of laws were only enforced against black people, despite being broken by white people all the time. Is it whataboutism to complain? It's worth noting when different rules seem to apply depending on who's involved.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > It’s not a rebuttal though. So what? Discussion doesn't consist solely of logical arguments (or arguments in total). There's a salient difference between "whataboutism" and a non sequitor. One has no way to continue the discussion (it changes to something else) and the other has an underlying set of issues that are likely beyond articulation of the poster, but exist nonetheless. > I can just say “Yes, Y and Z are also doing that bad thing and should also stop.” Then why not say that? The underlying issue is that there's reasons people are objecting to Google and not others. Responding with a dismissive reply devoid of content is a nonsequitor. Implying that the assertion is without merit because you object to the syntactical presentation, avoids the issues raised. e.g. Google helps steer culture and would necessarily have to actively enforce totalitarian and oppressive rules in China.

saas_co_de 8y ago

The other absurdity is the nerve of these western "human rights" organizations to believe that they should dictate morality and law for the entire world. China's censorship is no different than censorship of hate speech in the west. They have just as much right as us to decide what acceptable speech is for their country and they have just as much right as us to demand that businesses operating in their country follow the law.