9 ms·
Seeing Americans companies take sides in the politics of foreign countries in such enthusiastic, carefree ways leaves me feeling very uneasy.
by p90x 16y ago
Seeing Americans companies take sides in the politics of foreign countries in such enthusiastic, carefree ways leaves me feeling very uneasy.
- moultano 16y agoWhy?
- hugh3 16y agoI'm not the OP, but I can see his point. Foreigners (not just Americans) taking sides in political disputes which they don't really understand might wind up helping the wrong side. Even if we just define "the wrong side" as "not the side they would have supported if they'd known more about the situation". Alternatively, even if they pick "the right side", they might wind up inadvertently helping the wrong side, since the right side can then say "Hey look, our enemies are being propped up by foreign interests!" Does this mean that foreigners can't take sides in political battles going on in other countries? No, but they should certainly be circumspect about it and do their research and not jump on a bandwagon just because it happens to smell nice.
- RP_Joe 16y agoMy thoughts exactly.
- mkelly 16y agoI agree in principle, but in this case there's one side attempting to cut off all uncontrolled communication in and out of the country. It seems like an easy choice to side against their position on communication.
- qq66 16y agoWhat if the revolution is successful but the current government is replaced with something far worse? Would you want to be part of a company that encouraged that?
- jbri 16y agoYes, let's support brutal dictatorships on the off-chance that a revolution might result in an even more brutal dictatorship.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hugh3 16y agoThe sarcasm is unbefitting of the seriousness of the occasion. What if it's not an "off-chance" but a 90% probability. Or even a 50% probability? The situation the way I see it is this: currently the bad guys are in power. The opposition forces are the not-so-bad guys (liberal democracy types) and the much worse guys (radical Islamists). The Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood) are, after all, not just radical Islamists -- they're pretty much the dudes who invented radical Islam. Their obtaining power would... well, it would be bad, especially for non-Muslims in Egypt. And probably anywhere else. My opinion on whom to support? Well, I'm just thankful that it's none of my fricking business and I can't do anything to change the situation anyway, so I don't really have to make a decision. But I am uncomfortable with the level of optimism I'm seeing from some western folks who assume the good guys will necessarily triumph (or worse, that the Muslim Brotherhood aren't really bad guys after all because they say they're not in favour of violence and they only want to form a unity government with the liberal forces whom they're totally not going to kick out at the earliest opportunity).
- nkassis 16y agoThe support for the Muslim brotherhood is overestimated. By the best data we can have they have about a 25% support rate. That is not enough in my view to take over. The situation in Egypt right now and in Iran during their revolution is very different.
- aurem1 16y agoThis is a valid concern. But by preaching democracy and human rights on the one hand and supporting dictators like Mubarak on the other, we just end up providing ammunition to radicals of all sorts and driving popular support towards them. Freedom of information is a human right or should be and kudos to Google for supporting it
- p90x 16y agoWe don't know what is going on in Egypt other than sound bites from CNN. It's our flavor of the month. We don't have anything invested in the country, and don't have to deal with the consequences of any of our actions there. Considering all that, is it ethical for us to get involved? Ultimately, this system is an interesting use of technology and makes for good infotainment. I have doubts to the extent which social networking impacts peoples lives in or moves events in Egypt. I see it as a cheap and easy way for news agencies to relate international news back to our lives in the west, possibly to make news stories more commercially viable. I just don't like the precedents of companies taking activist roles in foreign countries.
- jbooth 16y agoWe don't have anything invested in the country? You really didn't look closely at the tanks and guns on TV.
- p90x 16y agoWhen I said "we" I was referring to the tech community in general, and tech activists in particular. But you bring out a good point. The American government is approaching the crisis in a responsible, and moderate way precisely because they have an investment in Egypt and will have to deal with the consequences of the crisis. Tech activists are behaving irresponsibly, and encouraging civil disobedience precisely because they have no investment in Egypt and can walk away if things there deteriorate. Armchair revolutionaries.
- cma 16y agoTo my knowledge it doesn't come with a censorship mechanism that prevents pro-government tweets.
- reneherse 16y agoI feel just the opposite; actually proud and inspired that there are mainstream companies with the moral confidence to both take sides and act on their convictions. Many of our ills as a society are caused or perpetuated by too many individuals and corporations remaining amoral in the public arena.
- guelo 16y agoJust a guess, you supported Paypal, Visa, Amazon, etc. in the WikiLeaks case. Amiright?
- p90x 16y agoPaypal, Visa, Amazon took political positions in the WikiLeaks case. But you didn't like it because it went against your politics. Amiright?
- andylei 16y agohow could they have not taken political positions? they could either bow to us federal pressure or not. by bowing to pressure, they acted politically, but if they had resisted, it would have been equally political.
- p90x 16y agoThey could simply follow the law and fulfill their contracts, could they not?
- ebaysucks 16y agoThere is no law, there's just politics. Rules only exist for those who don't make them.
- andylei 16y agothey did fulfill their contracts, which said that they can terminate service for any reason
- p90x 16y agoAccording to Wikipedia, PayPal claimed they canceled the service because wikileak's funding origination, Wau Holland Foundation, violated its "Acceptable Use Policy" by engaging in "illegal activities". Wau Holland Foundation is responding by suing PayPal. That's how the law works. Partisan politics has no place in business.
- borism 16y agotake a look at the names of authors of the blog post: Posted by Ujjwal Singh, CoFounder of SayNow and AbdelKarim Mardini, Product Manager, Middle East & North Africa
- p90x 16y agoThe names are of South Asian origin, are they not? I don't know what I am meant to infer from them.
- hugh3 16y agoSingh certainly is. Abdelkarim Mardini appears to be an Arabic name and may very well be Egyptian. Wait, yes, he's Egyptian: http://www.google.com/profiles/ak.mardini?hl=en http://www.google.com/profiles/ak.mardini?hl=en
- p90x 16y agoOk... Can you connect the dots for me? I still don't see what I should be taking away from that. I'm sure that there is a whole spectrum of political opinion in Egypt, as there is in the USA, of which Mardini represents a single point.
- hugh3 16y agoWell, you were the one complaining about Americans (enthusiastically and in a carefree manner) taking sides in foreign disputes. It was pointed out that at least one of the key folks involved in this particular event is (at least by birth) an Egyptian. While I agree with your broader point, if this particular contribution comes from an Egyptian rather than an American it does seem to have some relevance for your original comment, which I took to pertain to this particular piece of software rather than to just be a general comment.
- pyre 16y ago'Not taking sides in foreign politics' also brings us things like US networking supplies companies selling dictatorships that means to suppress free speech on their countries' internet access. The real questions is: how does one 'take no sides' when dealing with international commerce? Is selling weapons to both sides, 'taking no sides?' Or is the only true way to 'take no sides' just to refuse to do international business at all?
- SapphireSun 16y agoThat's what George Washington advocated, but then in times of an extremely different nature. (There are subtitles, but his primary position was isolationist to protect the growing country).
- yanw 16y agoIt's primarily a human rights issue. If they have the resources they should do something so kudos to everyone involved.
- icandoitbetter 16y agoLet's just remember that taking sides = enabling free speech in this case.
- p90x 16y agoI don't believe in the universal superiority of American style free speech.