3 ms·

Then why are people shitting over Google for attempting to created a censored search engine for China? I think the project was called Dragonfly.

elaus 5y ago
I think it's fair to _criticise_ local companies that are giving up certain morals to be able to make business in foreign countries. This creates some pressure and forces companies to consider either keeping the users in your home country happy or to make profits abroad. We just can't expect the foreign country to change their laws or the company to break those laws.
themolecularman 5y ago
Wasn't Project Dragonfly shut down by internal Google "activists" rather than by outside forces?
mrtksn 5y ago
I don’t know, should ask them. Maybe it’s because of the Googles PR giving the idea that they are not in the business of making money but organising world’s knowledge? Maybe they should ask Google why they don’t go non-profit. Maybe Google backed down because damage on the brand in US would be greater than the expected profits from China? Maybe they back down because employees went political and Google didn't want to lose them? Or maybe they are simply afraid that these new abilities will come back home?
- fossuser 5y ago
  Maybe because it's wrong to actively help suppress speech in a hostile country regardless of its legality in that country? Legal and ethical are not the same thing - something can be legal and unethical, or illegal and ethical.
  - mrtksn 5y ago
    Who says what's wrong or unethical? Would you consider unethical or wrong to take people's guns away? UK, EU or Australia might disagree with the US on this. What about abortion? What about regulation on what goes into your body? What about blasphemy? What about ending your own life? What about pre-marital sex? What about changing your religion? What about drawing Muhammeds cartoon? What about many other things that are right or wrong depending on who you ask?
    - fossuser 5y ago
      Just because it's not always easy to get consensus doesn't mean all positions are equally valid. In countries with rule of law, elections, and free press, the law in that country holds more importance than unelected dictatorships with state controlled media. Small L liberalism has a lot of values around the things you suggest: free speech, freedom of expression, laws against violence. A lot of these values make the answers to your questions pretty easy. In the corner cases if the country has rule of law, elections, and a free press - deference to their law is probably fine (though not a panacea).
      - mrtksn 5y ago
        I don't say they are all equally valid but what's the solutions here? Impose your own rights as long as you can? I guess that's an option but it leads to armed conflicts. As for the "US superiority" argument, some argue that US is no different than North Korea, maybe US corporations should consider Nordic morales and laws when doing business in India then? After all, according to democracy index Norway is much more democratic than the US. People stormed the Capitol a few months back and according to the polls a significant portion of the US population thinks that the elections in the USA are not fair and the sitting president is installed there by a deep state cabal. However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy. Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal? Sounds ridiculous but only if you are not among the majority[0] of the Republican party voters. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-trust-polling-study-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-tru...
spondyl 5y ago
Because they're applying Western ideals to a country (or more specifically a government) that doesn't share those same ideals. Larry and Sergei were of the opinion that any information, even if censored, is better than no information at all. > "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." [1] They could have pulled out but they were idealistic and felt that their presence was one step towards making the world a better place. Well, that and > The Google statement said the tradeoff for going against its basic principle of making the "world's information universally available and accessible" is gaining greater access to a quickly growing Chinese economy. That's the general gist anyway. I forget the specifics but it's covered in a book called In The Plex[2] [1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex

elaus 5y ago

I think it's fair to _criticise_ local companies that are giving up certain morals to be able to make business in foreign countries. This creates some pressure and forces companies to consider either keeping the users in your home country happy or to make profits abroad. We just can't expect the foreign country to change their laws or the company to break those laws.

themolecularman 5y ago

Wasn't Project Dragonfly shut down by internal Google "activists" rather than by outside forces?

mrtksn 5y ago

I don’t know, should ask them. Maybe it’s because of the Googles PR giving the idea that they are not in the business of making money but organising world’s knowledge? Maybe they should ask Google why they don’t go non-profit. Maybe Google backed down because damage on the brand in US would be greater than the expected profits from China? Maybe they back down because employees went political and Google didn't want to lose them? Or maybe they are simply afraid that these new abilities will come back home?

fossuser 5y ago
Maybe because it's wrong to actively help suppress speech in a hostile country regardless of its legality in that country? Legal and ethical are not the same thing - something can be legal and unethical, or illegal and ethical.
- mrtksn 5y ago
  Who says what's wrong or unethical? Would you consider unethical or wrong to take people's guns away? UK, EU or Australia might disagree with the US on this. What about abortion? What about regulation on what goes into your body? What about blasphemy? What about ending your own life? What about pre-marital sex? What about changing your religion? What about drawing Muhammeds cartoon? What about many other things that are right or wrong depending on who you ask?
  - fossuser 5y ago
    Just because it's not always easy to get consensus doesn't mean all positions are equally valid. In countries with rule of law, elections, and free press, the law in that country holds more importance than unelected dictatorships with state controlled media. Small L liberalism has a lot of values around the things you suggest: free speech, freedom of expression, laws against violence. A lot of these values make the answers to your questions pretty easy. In the corner cases if the country has rule of law, elections, and a free press - deference to their law is probably fine (though not a panacea).
    - mrtksn 5y ago
      I don't say they are all equally valid but what's the solutions here? Impose your own rights as long as you can? I guess that's an option but it leads to armed conflicts. As for the "US superiority" argument, some argue that US is no different than North Korea, maybe US corporations should consider Nordic morales and laws when doing business in India then? After all, according to democracy index Norway is much more democratic than the US. People stormed the Capitol a few months back and according to the polls a significant portion of the US population thinks that the elections in the USA are not fair and the sitting president is installed there by a deep state cabal. However ridiculous I find these claims, as you can see, it's not a clear cut in the US too. Twitter was even considered a part of the conspiracy. Indians might ask, why should they be subjected to the morals of US deep state cabal? Sounds ridiculous but only if you are not among the majority[0] of the Republican party voters. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-trust-polling-study-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/10/election-tru...

spondyl 5y ago

Because they're applying Western ideals to a country (or more specifically a government) that doesn't share those same ideals. Larry and Sergei were of the opinion that any information, even if censored, is better than no information at all. > "While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." [1] They could have pulled out but they were idealistic and felt that their presence was one step towards making the world a better place. Well, that and > The Google statement said the tradeoff for going against its basic principle of making the "world's information universally available and accessible" is gaining greater access to a quickly growing Chinese economy. That's the general gist anyway. I forget the specifics but it's covered in a book called In The Plex[2] [1]: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ http://edition.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/25/google.china/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Plex