34 ms·
To put the title into context: "Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?" "There’s still that o
by Kurtz79 8y ago
To put the title into context:
"Do you still feel like Silicon Valley has retained that idealism that struck you when you arrived here?"
"There’s still that optimism. But the optimism is tempered by a sense of deliberation. Things have changed quite a bit. You know, we deliberate about things a lot more, and we are more thoughtful about what we do. But there’s a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn’t solve humanity’s problems. It was always naïve to think so. Technology is an enabler, but humanity has to deal with humanity’s problems. I think we’re both over-reliant on technology as a way to solve things and probably, at this moment, over-indexing on technology as a source of all problems, too."
- discoball 8y ago<<But there’s a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn’t solve humanity’s problems. It was always naïve to think so. Technology is an enabler>> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. So he's right about humanity having to solve its problems but he's forgetting that Google, the corporation, is opting to make it harder for humanity to solve its problems by enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.
- marricks 8y agoHis statement is a wonderful PR side step of that issue. It’s meant to convey an understanding of the moral challenges of technology but with their support of the DoD it seems, well, words are wind.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- beambot 8y agoBoth of the listed examples involve governments. To first order, governments are created by groups of people to address issues that are larger than any one individual. (I.e. closer to "humanity" as a collective than you as an individual.) > enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart. This statement is all subject to your interpretation of "humanity's best interests". Not saying I disagree with your interpretation... Just saying: there are many interpretations, especially in other cultural bubbles.
- make3 8y agoI'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry
- knieveltech 8y agoQuick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?
- TeMPOraL 8y agoGets redirected towards the war effort, suffers some problems after the war, and then recovers. Assuming isolated China vs. US war, there's still the whole Europe to manufacture trinkets for.
- CM30 8y agoWhich countries in Europe would still buy Chinese goods if China were at war with the US? Maybe it's my memories of being taught about World War 1 and 2 speaking, but it seems more likely Europe would side with the US than China, and kinda unlikely they'd let both parties import goods as they please. The chances of it remaining an 'isolated' war where no one else gets involved would be low enough than action would probably cost China most of the European market along with the likes of Canada/Australia/etc.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoWell, the isolation assumption is a pretty weak one, but taking it, if China won, then why wouldn't Europe want to buy from them? Economics always beats hard feelings.
- CM30 8y agoIf China won would assume Europe would stay out of the conflict while the US and China fought each other. A fight with China as the enemy would probably end up dragging in basically the entire 'Western' world. Of course, it's all pretty insane to speculate about, since: A: Most countries now seem like they're trying to avoid actual wars as much as possible, and most remaining issues seem to be sparked off more by extremist nutcases/cults than a country's army trying to invade or fight off another. B: The US, most of Europe, China, etc have nuclear weapons, so any actual war between any of them would probably end like everyone's worst fears about the Cold War made reality. Don't think there'd be much trade or economics left after that.
- samontar 8y agoThose are government agencies you voted for. American citizens want leaders who bomb countries. Go vote a non-interventionist or isolationist if you want someone else. Face the truth. If you want no killing, Your enemy isn’t Google, it’s your neighbour.
- cortesoft 8y agoI mean, I did vote for someone who doesn't want to do those things. That person lost.
- justicezyx 8y agoSure, then it's not Google's fault either.
- ArchTypical 8y ago> Face the truth. If you want no killing, Your enemy isn’t Google, it’s your neighbour. > it's not Google's fault either. Starting from a false truth, you can come to any conclusion. Google is responsible for choosing to enable immoral acts and pretending there are no fault actors is one of your faults.
- justicezyx 8y agoI said it before: - If you continue this line of thinking, your only option probably is to extinguish all human being.
- andrepd 8y agoAbsolutely. There can be no protesting ANY immoral actions, because that means you must advocate for ending humanity /s.
- justicezyx 8y ago
- ucaetano 8y ago> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that. Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.
- danharaj 8y ago> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing? No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.
- tome 8y agoThey've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.
- ameister14 8y agoReally? When and where?
- tome 8y agoThroughout the 20th century across the globe.
- ameister14 8y agoAh, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ryanmercer 8y ago
- Spooky23 8y agoThat's reductive argument. Who decides who is worthy enough to hold "humanity's best interests" at heart? That's a subjective judgement that depends on who, where and when you are. Kipling's vision of "humanity" and its interest is very different that Mao's, which is in turn very different from yours. Technology makes things more efficient, but doesn't change the act. Getting your head bashed in by a caveman, cut off by a 19th century cavalry sabre wielded by a horseman, or vaporized by an explosive shell has the same end result. Do you equate the person who whittled the caveman's club, raised the cavalryman's' horse or operated the supply train that transported the shell with Google?
- fwip 8y agoThe company making bombs is the same as the company making software to deliver those bombs via drone. Both are working in service of making it easier for the government to kill people.
- Aunche 8y agoIf that's the case, the person financing the bombs and war are to blame as well. You can't really get away with avoiding taxes, so you can get a pass on that one. However, you probably own a smartphone that was largely manufactured in China. Buying imported goods enables Chinese oppression much more than introducing a search engine that just maintains the status quo and siphons some money away from China.
- virmundi 8y agoYou're making an assumption about best. What is best? Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-court-indicates-blasphemy-wont-be-tolerated-as-free-speech-1155530 https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-court-ind...). Gun violence appears to be leaving the ghettos and moving into more civilized neighborhoods. Is it an authoritarian power that feeds, houses, and medicates its population? China does a lot of this. Hunger is down dramatically. People are still largely free to go about their daily lives. Is it in-between? I don't know. The EU is starting to fray there. Nationalist movements are seeing that countries have to give up their current individual identities to conform with a Brussels/German worldview. Is this wrong? How are you to say? My whole point in all this is that you've alluded to some truth claim as an attack on Google. Can you a) clearly define your truth claim, at least to yourself, and b) say why it's more true than the Chinese view that people are sheep and need a shepard? The Left in the US holds this view to varying degrees. That's why we need all this regulation. No one should be free to buy plastic straws.
- mLuby 8y agoEnsuring your citizens are safe, fed, housed, and healthy is the bare minimum for any government (Looking at you, SF). "Peace, land, bread", you know? But any time an entity is afraid to be challenged, it is selfishly choosing its own survival over the possibility that there exists a better provider for its citizens. That part is the "not best" part, and it's also the part Google is accused of helping with. If Google was secretly working with the PRC to improve Chinese citizens' medical care, there wouldn't be any concern.
- virmundi 8y agoHow do you know that the entity isn't better than its people? The long term stability of governments correlates with general wellness. Technology helps make the government more stable. If 90% of the population's standard of living improves at the expense of the 10%, is that wrong? Where is the line? Even when a rising tide raises all boats, there are many who will still get swamped. Should we stop forward progression due to that?
- nsedlet 8y agoAgreed. Perhaps this is an unfair reading, but it feels like the implication is that if there aren't technological solutions to problems, then technology companies don't play an important role in those solutions. But Google has so much power to help, and in fact is better-positioned than almost any organization to help - and in fact has a duty to do so given that it helped create the problems. For instance, Youtube is one of the biggest sources of propaganda and uncivilized discourse there is.
- vetinari 8y agoDARPA and NSF MDDS grants were the money that kickstarted Google back at the Stanford University. Later, they took investments from another three-letter agencies. Is it any wonder they did what they did?
- lern_too_spel 8y ago> and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. No such product launched, so no enabling has occurred. You might be confusing Google with Apple here, but Apple's workers haven't protested, as far as we've heard.
- SquishyPanda23 8y agoPart of me can't help but read this a little cynically. They're starting to articulate a shift away from Larry Page's idealistic view of making information universally accessible and useful and toward tempering expectations about what technology can do. After that they'll pivot increasingly toward a position that lets them justify the drone and censorship programs without the baggage of Page's original naivety. Again, that's an overly cynical take. But it's kind of hard to avoid reading that as a possibility.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoI see it differently. Achieving broad, idealistic goals requires careful and strategic thinking and that's what he's expressing here. I'd argue you're being overly naive rather than overly cynical -- real-world trade offs have downsides, and require deliberation. They're not solvable with sloganeering or absolute purity.
- SquishyPanda23 8y agoI'm not sure. He's specifically saying technology can't achieve idealistic goals, even with careful and strategic thinking. It requires "humanity" to achieve those goals. So if idealistic goals aren't achieved, it's not because Google did the wrong thing, it's because Google's users didn't do the right thing. So it's a diversion of responsibility away from Google, which frees them to take a less vision-directed and more financially-directed approach.
- yourbandsucks 8y agoWell, you're right that he's a CEO and of course any communication has been carefully calculated. But that doesn't mean that he's an empty vessel. It sounds like he's thinking about it and trying to weigh upsides against downsides, even if Google would be disproportionately blamed for the downsides.
- pokemongoaway 8y agoNot sure why you're tempering your position by calling it cynical. That's just a judgement. What evdience is there that it is cynical (and inaccurate)? Your analysis is in line with the trend, and few speak up without tempering their critiques. The rise of leftism makes no attempts at tempering it's effects - just like it did not in Russia or China.
- mkirklions 8y agoThanks to my engineering abilities + Google + Reddit, I learned embedded systems and built a dishwasher that cleans and sets your dinner table. Until the world gets violent, technology is solving problems. Even then, it will be the politicians, not the programmers who caused this. EDIT: HN whales, I'll never understand your silence.
- Zarath 8y agoA.k.a. we're a technology company so obviously we still need to believe this, but we're going to co-opt technoskepticism to pretend like the technology we create isn't part of the problem
- Agathos 8y agoEven in context, I think saying 'technology' as a shorthand for 'the particular technology Google is selling' is sloppy and lazy. But then I've long thought that about the whole 'technology sector' shorthand. As if construction, agriculture, manufacturing, medicine, etc. were not technologies.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]