4 ms·
I agree 100% with the last paragraph: "The EFF’s Trevor Timm said he was overall happy with Google’s arguments in the hearing, but he thought the use of WikiLe
by tensafefrogs 15y ago
I agree 100% with the last paragraph:
"The EFF’s Trevor Timm said he was overall happy with Google’s arguments in the hearing, but he thought the use of WikiLeaks as an example and the company’s focus on “following the money” revealed that it was more interested in its own search business than in freedom of speech.”They seemed to be endorsing the way that payment processors and advertisers should be censoring sites,” said Timm. ”I think it really shows why they should have had more of a representation of people at the hearing. Google is looking out for its interests, but we’re looking out for the interest of everyone on the Internet. Categorizing Wikileaks as a rogue site isn’t something we agree with.”"
- y3di 15y agoI might be looking at this wrong, but it seemed like Google was just pointing out an example of how this tactic has been effective in the past. They don't say anything about whether they condone the use of this strategy for the specific case of Wikileaks.
- bad_user 15y agoIMHO, what happened to Wikileaks is a clear attack on free speech for which the companies involved should have been penalized. That this didn't happen says a lot and Google should have chosen another way to get their point across.
- georgemcbay 15y agoBy offering it up as an existing alternative they are implicitly endorsing it.
- skanuj 15y agoWhat I like about this statement from Google is that it highlights that the bill as it stands doesn't differentiate between rogues and free-speech websites like WikiLeaks. I find this statement as a hidden jab, rather than just self-interest preserving statement.