7 ms·

You’re a company. You have the power to influence the opinions of millions, those millions can - by vote or brute force - hold their government accountable. Do

You’re a company. You have the power to influence the opinions of millions, those millions can - by vote or brute force - hold their government accountable. Do you take an independent choice based on your morals and the information you’ve seen, or do you take the road to the biggest pile of cash?

marcinzm 7y ago
>Do you take an independent choice based on your morals and the information you’ve seen, or do you take the road to the biggest pile of cash? You mean, do you force your moral viewpoints on the rest of the world? I would have figured that the last 500 years of colonization showed the issue with viewing one's own morals as superior to the rest of the world.
- Carpetsmoker 7y ago
  Eh, that seems rather harsh. The question is whether or not Google should show these borders as disputed, and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that, in fact, these borders are a matter of dispute. Showing them as disputed is considerably more neutral than just taking one side (whether that's also realistic/feasible politically is another matter, and also not agreeing with the parent commenter btw).
  - wanderer2323 7y ago
    Then the viewpoints you are forcing becomes whether the border is 'disputed' which is not much better and it makes your map a mess.
    - retsibsi 7y ago
      When the dispute is only formal, yes, it's a subjective question whether both parties are important enough for us to take the dispute seriously. But when a border is disputed in the 'troops and border skirmishes' sense? Ignoring that is verging on denying physical reality.
    - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
      Well, yeah; maps are a mess sometimes; that's just the way it is. The core criticism in this article is that Google presents maps as simple without context while in fact they are not.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Who in the offended country is being forced to use an external map they find annoying? Those governments can make their own maps and share them with your population, like any other product or service that conflicts with regulations in some jurisdictions. What they're looking for, and some corporations are willing to provide, is the appearance of endorsement by external authorities for their political stance. Anyone in the country who disputes the border layout can be 'refuted' with 'just check Google, that proves the border runs thus and so.'
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  False binary. You can just put things out there as you see them and then other people can take it or leave it as they see fit.
Quarrelsome 7y ago
I don't think that's a fair assessment as the alternative might well be their services being blocked by that region and a local service implementing this exact status quo. Exactly the same outcome just without Google. Its a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to withdraw from those markets on ethical grounds.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  I'm not sure what Google should do, but someone else made a good point that I think applies here: 'Google says X' probably has much greater propaganda value than 'this local company that is clearly under our government's authority says X'.
lukeqsee 7y ago
Unfortunately, it’s not this simple and certainly not this idealistic. 1) A (public) company’s first duty is to increase shareholder value, ergo, you take the cash. 2) That company wouldn’t have any influence on those millions if they aren’t in the market, so the point is moot. They’re either in the market under the constraints by the governing body or they aren’t in the market. I’m not saying this is how I think the world should work; I am saying this is how it does work.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  This isn't strictly true. A public company's first duty is to fulfill its stated purpose in its articles of incorporation. While that's often to maximize profits, it's not always the case. For example, your for profit company might also have a stated purpose to protect the environment.
  - lukeqsee 7y ago
    Ah, yes, valid. Unfortunately that’s precious few public companies.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
How would you decide on the issue of Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)? What is the independent morally correct answer?
cnst 7y ago
No, companies are there to make value for their shareholders. They have to do it in an ethical way, sure. But there's also the practical reality of which country the region is affiliated with, and what was the voice of the people living in said region. Denying this voice, just because it hasn't been recognised internationally, is not the sort of activism that for-profit companies should be engaged in.
pridkett 7y ago
It’s not that simple. The Indian government literally bans maps that depict the national boundaries as different. It’s even a question on their customs forms [0]. Taking a position like you suggest is always a debate and is rarely black and white. Draw the maps differently and suddenly Google stops working. Now what? Not only do you lose business, but any other value you could provide to people in the country has now been nullified. [0] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/customs/forms_pdf/cs-bgge-declare-form1-ason19feb2014.pdf;jsessionid=38149A235D3D72B8BAF51B91DAA404AF http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/customs/forms_...
- amingilani 7y ago
  I concur, and it's the same on the Pakistani side[1]. If you don't play by the rules online, you're blocked in the country. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22337891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22337891
- 8note 7y ago
  you're discounting that they might mean Google should influence the American government to change India's maps by brute force. "Gun boat diplomacy" comes to mind
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
FpUser 7y ago
"those millions can - by vote or brute force - hold their government accountable." I am sort of speechless. You advocate people taking up arms against their government all upon advice of "high morals" spread by corporations.
BurningFrog 7y ago
Are you saying that if Google choose to display certain borders, the real borders might follow? I might call that "delusion of grandeur by proxy"...
- avip 7y ago
  But surely google could just buy Kashmir, or Nagorno-Karabakh, and lease it to the relevant parties?
avip 7y ago
Your poetic post seems to imply there is some "right" border to be drawn between conflict zones?
fortran77 7y ago
How do I know who's right? I guess I'm not as smart as the 10xers here on hacker news who seem to always know the "right" side to take. I don't know what side to take on England vs Ireland, India vs Pakistan, Russia vs Ukraine, and dozens of others around the world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes ) So I'm not quick to judge. I don't even know if there exists an ethical and moral answer to these questions.

marcinzm 7y ago

>Do you take an independent choice based on your morals and the information you’ve seen, or do you take the road to the biggest pile of cash? You mean, do you force your moral viewpoints on the rest of the world? I would have figured that the last 500 years of colonization showed the issue with viewing one's own morals as superior to the rest of the world.

Carpetsmoker 7y ago
Eh, that seems rather harsh. The question is whether or not Google should show these borders as disputed, and I don't think anyone can reasonably deny that, in fact, these borders are a matter of dispute. Showing them as disputed is considerably more neutral than just taking one side (whether that's also realistic/feasible politically is another matter, and also not agreeing with the parent commenter btw).
- wanderer2323 7y ago
  Then the viewpoints you are forcing becomes whether the border is 'disputed' which is not much better and it makes your map a mess.
  - retsibsi 7y ago
    When the dispute is only formal, yes, it's a subjective question whether both parties are important enough for us to take the dispute seriously. But when a border is disputed in the 'troops and border skirmishes' sense? Ignoring that is verging on denying physical reality.
  - Carpetsmoker 7y ago
    Well, yeah; maps are a mess sometimes; that's just the way it is. The core criticism in this article is that Google presents maps as simple without context while in fact they are not.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Who in the offended country is being forced to use an external map they find annoying? Those governments can make their own maps and share them with your population, like any other product or service that conflicts with regulations in some jurisdictions. What they're looking for, and some corporations are willing to provide, is the appearance of endorsement by external authorities for their political stance. Anyone in the country who disputes the border layout can be 'refuted' with 'just check Google, that proves the border runs thus and so.'
anigbrowl 7y ago
False binary. You can just put things out there as you see them and then other people can take it or leave it as they see fit.

Quarrelsome 7y ago

I don't think that's a fair assessment as the alternative might well be their services being blocked by that region and a local service implementing this exact status quo. Exactly the same outcome just without Google. Its a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to withdraw from those markets on ethical grounds.

retsibsi 7y ago
I'm not sure what Google should do, but someone else made a good point that I think applies here: 'Google says X' probably has much greater propaganda value than 'this local company that is clearly under our government's authority says X'.

lukeqsee 7y ago

Unfortunately, it’s not this simple and certainly not this idealistic. 1) A (public) company’s first duty is to increase shareholder value, ergo, you take the cash. 2) That company wouldn’t have any influence on those millions if they aren’t in the market, so the point is moot. They’re either in the market under the constraints by the governing body or they aren’t in the market. I’m not saying this is how I think the world should work; I am saying this is how it does work.

Consultant32452 7y ago
This isn't strictly true. A public company's first duty is to fulfill its stated purpose in its articles of incorporation. While that's often to maximize profits, it's not always the case. For example, your for profit company might also have a stated purpose to protect the environment.
- lukeqsee 7y ago
  Ah, yes, valid. Unfortunately that’s precious few public companies.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

How would you decide on the issue of Islas Malvinas (Falkland Islands)? What is the independent morally correct answer?

cnst 7y ago

No, companies are there to make value for their shareholders. They have to do it in an ethical way, sure. But there's also the practical reality of which country the region is affiliated with, and what was the voice of the people living in said region. Denying this voice, just because it hasn't been recognised internationally, is not the sort of activism that for-profit companies should be engaged in.

pridkett 7y ago

It’s not that simple. The Indian government literally bans maps that depict the national boundaries as different. It’s even a question on their customs forms [0]. Taking a position like you suggest is always a debate and is rarely black and white. Draw the maps differently and suddenly Google stops working. Now what? Not only do you lose business, but any other value you could provide to people in the country has now been nullified. [0] http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/customs/forms_pdf/cs-bgge-declare-form1-ason19feb2014.pdf;jsessionid=38149A235D3D72B8BAF51B91DAA404AF http://www.cbic.gov.in/resources//htdocs-cbec/customs/forms_...

amingilani 7y ago
I concur, and it's the same on the Pakistani side[1]. If you don't play by the rules online, you're blocked in the country. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22337891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22337891
8note 7y ago
you're discounting that they might mean Google should influence the American government to change India's maps by brute force. "Gun boat diplomacy" comes to mind

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

FpUser 7y ago

"those millions can - by vote or brute force - hold their government accountable." I am sort of speechless. You advocate people taking up arms against their government all upon advice of "high morals" spread by corporations.

BurningFrog 7y ago

Are you saying that if Google choose to display certain borders, the real borders might follow? I might call that "delusion of grandeur by proxy"...

avip 7y ago
But surely google could just buy Kashmir, or Nagorno-Karabakh, and lease it to the relevant parties?

avip 7y ago

Your poetic post seems to imply there is some "right" border to be drawn between conflict zones?

fortran77 7y ago

How do I know who's right? I guess I'm not as smart as the 10xers here on hacker news who seem to always know the "right" side to take. I don't know what side to take on England vs Ireland, India vs Pakistan, Russia vs Ukraine, and dozens of others around the world (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes ) So I'm not quick to judge. I don't even know if there exists an ethical and moral answer to these questions.