4 ms·

Why?

hugh3 16y ago
I'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 ago
  My thoughts exactly.
- mkelly 16y ago
  I 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 ago
    What 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        This 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
        khafra 16y ago
        "Support" isn't a fine-grained enough word. Selling the revolutionaries guillotines is probably bad. Providing them the means to tell their story to the world is probably good.
    - elwin 16y ago
      A future government might or might not be worse, we can't tell. Supporting the current revolution and encouraging its future development into something far worse are separate issues until the revolution actually accomplishes something.
    - mkelly 16y ago
      No, I wouldn't want to be part of a company that encouraged an oppressive new regime to rise to power, but I think that's a straw man. If an oppressive new regime rises, then it's bad because it's oppressive, and you couldn't blame it on the existence of freedom of communication during the revolution. Of course I don't speak for Google in any of this, but I think it's simply supporting the notion that, when in doubt, more freedom of communication is probably better. (At least at this point, where the status quo is currently, "cut off from the outside world".)
p90x 16y ago
We 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 ago
  We don't have anything invested in the country? You really didn't look closely at the tanks and guns on TV.
  - p90x 16y ago
    When 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.

Why?

hugh3 16y ago

I'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 ago
My thoughts exactly.
mkelly 16y ago
I 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      The 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 ago
        The 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 ago
        This 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
      - khafra 16y ago
        "Support" isn't a fine-grained enough word. Selling the revolutionaries guillotines is probably bad. Providing them the means to tell their story to the world is probably good.
  - elwin 16y ago
    A future government might or might not be worse, we can't tell. Supporting the current revolution and encouraging its future development into something far worse are separate issues until the revolution actually accomplishes something.
  - mkelly 16y ago
    No, I wouldn't want to be part of a company that encouraged an oppressive new regime to rise to power, but I think that's a straw man. If an oppressive new regime rises, then it's bad because it's oppressive, and you couldn't blame it on the existence of freedom of communication during the revolution. Of course I don't speak for Google in any of this, but I think it's simply supporting the notion that, when in doubt, more freedom of communication is probably better. (At least at this point, where the status quo is currently, "cut off from the outside world".)

p90x 16y ago

We 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 ago
We don't have anything invested in the country? You really didn't look closely at the tanks and guns on TV.
- p90x 16y ago
  When 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.