3 ms·
No, the point is that if Google does not work with them then they'll do exactly the same without Google.
by ElBarto 8y ago
No, the point is that if Google does not work with them then they'll do exactly the same without Google.
- tern 8y agoIf there is an argument to be made, it's that without Google's help, they would end up with a worse search product. This kind of "resign in protest" gesture is one that made a bit more sense in the early days of globalization when the US was clearly dominant.
- ionised 8y agoThat's a lazy argument and one I personally find morally repugnant. It's no different than the justification some use when we talk about the ethical ramifications of selling arms to middle eastern states in conflict. "They are going to buy their arms from someone, it may as well be us!"
- ElBarto 8y agoI am commenting from a national interests/geostrategic angle. It is amoral almost by definition.
- toss1 8y agoNational and Geostrategic interests are amoral by definition? Only if you are an amoral actor that cares not a bit about human rights or ability to self-determination. It is very much in the interests of the US and every democracy to uphold human rights and self-determination at every turn and every possible location in the world. Failure to do so enables dictators, authoritarians, and criminals. The fact that we've often failed to do so, or do it well, does not mitigate the benefits when we it is done well, or the damage when we fail. And make no mistake, failure is what you are pushing. The only question is whether you are doing it right now as a shill for the CCP, or only because you are amoral?