4 ms·

The article was masterfully framed to make us feel outraged by Google’s exercise of its right to chose where it does business. When Google pulls out of a countr

The article was masterfully framed to make us feel outraged by Google’s exercise of its right to chose where it does business. When Google pulls out of a country, it loses a lot, and so does the country. This is a strong incentive for both parties to be reasonable. Forcing Google to obey every government in the world doesn’t seem fair; many countries have unreasonable or evil laws.

black_puppydog 7y ago
OTOH: forcing every country in the world to obey google is no better.
- hartator 7y ago
  It is. Google hasn’t killed anyone so far that disagrees with them. Plenty of governments does.
  - bayindirh 7y ago
    No, it’s not. We didn’t give Microsoft a free pass when they did monopolistic moves. Google should not be treated differently.
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      You're moving the goalposts. The comment above yours says (and quite rightly) that Google does not have the power of a government and shouldn't be considered as such. And your response is "but Microsoft!".
      - bayindirh 7y ago
        Thanks for your answer. Sorry, it was not intentional. I'll try to explain myself better. In today's world, some of the corporations size and influence allows them to behave the way the want and, I see this as problematic. Google may not be killing anyone who disagrees with them and, they can freely decide where to conduct business. I have no problem with these points. However, I see Google's behavior as problematic. Google's response dşffers from country to country. They have a similar problem in EU (more specifically European Economic Area) and, they have implemented a selection screen similar to Microsoft's browser & search engine selection screen. Turkey might not be in EU but, as a country it has every right to level the playing field for the companies (in this case Yandex and Google) in order to increase the competition. The but Microsoft! response is coming from the change of tone in response to this issue. When Microsoft became the monopoly and pushed Sun Microsystems and other browsers around, the unanimous vote was to divide or somewhat stop them. When Google does a similar thing, response changes with respect to country which Google has a dispute. I find this wrong. P.S.: I'm a bit tired and English is not my native language. If I messed the writing, please point it out. I'll try to clarify.
- dahfizz 7y ago
  Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
    - brycesbeard 7y ago
      Many people believe abortion is murder. That doesn’t make it so.
      - umvi 7y ago
        Well that case is just semantics dispute on the definition of "murder" and "human".
      - dang 7y ago
        "Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Aperocky 7y ago
      I stand with Google in this case. What if google goes down tomorrow? Is your human rights violated?
      - dahfizz 7y ago
        The deterioration of the term "human right" really makes me sad for the future. A human right is something to kill and die for. If someone breaks into your home, you ought to defend yourself. If a government is censoring you, you are justified in civil war to defend your rights. But now "human rights" are political speech for "something I want". I want free housing and medical care and internet access, so those things must be human rights. And to be clear, those are great things. Being able to provide medical care to people is wonderful. But that does not make it a human right.
- root_axis 7y ago
  Is this a reference to something? What does it mean for a country to obey google?

black_puppydog 7y ago

OTOH: forcing every country in the world to obey google is no better.

hartator 7y ago
It is. Google hasn’t killed anyone so far that disagrees with them. Plenty of governments does.
- bayindirh 7y ago
  No, it’s not. We didn’t give Microsoft a free pass when they did monopolistic moves. Google should not be treated differently.
  - dahfizz 7y ago
    You're moving the goalposts. The comment above yours says (and quite rightly) that Google does not have the power of a government and shouldn't be considered as such. And your response is "but Microsoft!".
    - bayindirh 7y ago
      Thanks for your answer. Sorry, it was not intentional. I'll try to explain myself better. In today's world, some of the corporations size and influence allows them to behave the way the want and, I see this as problematic. Google may not be killing anyone who disagrees with them and, they can freely decide where to conduct business. I have no problem with these points. However, I see Google's behavior as problematic. Google's response dşffers from country to country. They have a similar problem in EU (more specifically European Economic Area) and, they have implemented a selection screen similar to Microsoft's browser & search engine selection screen. Turkey might not be in EU but, as a country it has every right to level the playing field for the companies (in this case Yandex and Google) in order to increase the competition. The but Microsoft! response is coming from the change of tone in response to this issue. When Microsoft became the monopoly and pushed Sun Microsystems and other browsers around, the unanimous vote was to divide or somewhat stop them. When Google does a similar thing, response changes with respect to country which Google has a dispute. I find this wrong. P.S.: I'm a bit tired and English is not my native language. If I messed the writing, please point it out. I'll try to clarify.
dahfizz 7y ago
Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
- umvi 7y ago
  Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
  - brycesbeard 7y ago
    Many people believe abortion is murder. That doesn’t make it so.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Well that case is just semantics dispute on the definition of "murder" and "human".
    - dang 7y ago
      "Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    I stand with Google in this case. What if google goes down tomorrow? Is your human rights violated?
    - dahfizz 7y ago
      The deterioration of the term "human right" really makes me sad for the future. A human right is something to kill and die for. If someone breaks into your home, you ought to defend yourself. If a government is censoring you, you are justified in civil war to defend your rights. But now "human rights" are political speech for "something I want". I want free housing and medical care and internet access, so those things must be human rights. And to be clear, those are great things. Being able to provide medical care to people is wonderful. But that does not make it a human right.
root_axis 7y ago
Is this a reference to something? What does it mean for a country to obey google?