17 ms·

<<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 w

• marricks 8y ago
  His 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 ago
  Both 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 ago
  I'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 ago
    Quick 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 ago
      Gets 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 ago
        Which 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 ago
          Well, 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 ago
            If 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 ago
  Those 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 ago
    I mean, I did vote for someone who doesn't want to do those things. That person lost.
    • justicezyx 8y ago
      Sure, 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 ago
          I said it before: - If you continue this line of thinking, your only option probably is to extinguish all human being.
          • andrepd 8y ago
            Absolutely. 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 ago
      They've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.
      • ameister14 8y ago
        Really? When and where?
        • tome 8y ago
          Throughout the 20th century across the globe.
          • ameister14 8y ago
            Ah, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.
            • deleted 8y ago
              [deleted]
        • ryanmercer 8y ago
• Spooky23 8y ago
  That'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 ago
    The 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 ago
      If 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 ago
  You'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 ago
    Ensuring 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 ago
      How 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 ago
  Agreed. 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 ago
  DARPA 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.