4 ms·

Google worried it couldn't control how Israel uses Project Nimbus, files reveal

70 points by zhengiszen 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
khaledh 1y ago
[flagged]
- Gys 1y ago
  'Ethics never made anyone rich'?
- chneu 1y ago
  Because of two things: Money They think they're working for the winning side. Or side that's going to win. As long as they win nobody will care.
- new_user_final 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 1y ago
    Wtf? You can't post like that here and we've banned the account.
- immibis 1y ago
  Makes money. Also they support it.
- westmeal 1y ago
  Don't be evil ( unless you can make boat loads of money )
einszwei 1y ago
The timing of the leak is interesting. It might point to the fact that situation on ground in Gaza is dire enough that big companies want some plausible deniability. This is just a speculation though.
- immibis 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jokoon 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - aaomidi 1y ago
      https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wetenschappers-vrijwel-eensgezind-israel-pleegt-in-gaza-genocide-a4893293 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wet... It is one. Literally the experts in this field agree that it is one. At this point, not using that term by the average person is genocide denial. You may have an opinion that it’s not genocide. However you should be ready to take on the people who have made studying genocide their life work.
      - gadilif 1y ago
        The facts are, well, different: As of now: No international court has ruled that genocide has been committed by either side. The term "genocide" is used politically and emotionally by many, but legally it carries a very high burden of proof. The ICJ case and other investigations (e.g., by the International Criminal Court) are ongoing and may shape future judgments.
        runarberg 1y ago
        For the record no international court has ruled that the Cambodian genocide was a genocide either. The perpetrators were arrested years or decades after the genocide and charged under a special UN endorsed tribunal for various crimes against humanity, but not genocide... That doesn’t mean there was no genocide in Cambodia, obviously. Even in cases where international courts did rule a genocide, such as in Rwanda, it usually happens months, years, or even decades after the fact. In Rwanda it wasn’t until the genocide was officially over where the UN entertained making charges for genocide, with a special court established 4 months later (nov. 1994), initial indictments a year after that (nov. 1995) and it wasn’t until 1996 when the first perpetrators were found guilty of genocide. The Bosnian Genocide tribunal took even longer. In no cases has anybody ever been found guilty of a genocide by an international court during an ongoing genocide. You are right about one thing though. The term genocide is used politically, but not in the way you are arguing. During the Rwandan Gencocide countries—particularly the USA, but also many European countries—avoided the term, and fought hard against using it to describe the horrors in Rwanda, because under the genocide convention they were obligated to take active role in preventing it, which they had no interest in doing. Usually avoiding the term is what politicians do to avoid their responsibilities.
giancarlostoro 1y ago
Google worried it cant control how [insert name of any foreign country] could use their cloud infrastructure. I mean I understand the concerns but they are the same of us giving any other country cloud infrastructure tooling, which doesn't just magically happen to just any country to be fair. If its not Google then it will be any defense contractors and cloud provider that just wants to print dollar bills.
immibis 1y ago
Obvious bullshit is obvious. The project did exactly what it was intended to do.
BrawnyBadger53 1y ago
[flagged]
- winterbloom 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - nixosbestos 1y ago
    [flagged]
thegrim33 1y ago
The OP account has had 72 of their last 90 submissions flagged/killed. How is a situation like this not an automatic, algorithmic, shadow-ban? Why allow someone like this to continue "contributing"?
- ath3nd 1y ago
  What about the OP's submission strikes you as violating HN's TOS or Code of Conduct? TheIntercept is legit journalism, no need to put "contributing" in quotes.
- zaphirplane 1y ago
  Don’t play dumb a number of the submissions involve Israel . Why negative submission involving Israel are down voted continues to be a mystery
  - coolcase 1y ago
    No mystery really.
- zhengiszen 1y ago
  Journalism is a cornerstone of democracy. Recommending censorship would only strengthen the fascists among us. You should do like me and confront lies or injustices when you encounter one.
- coolcase 1y ago
  Looks like the 72/90 is actually from shadow banning. But to answer whose opinions do you want to ban? Who is speaking correctly?
nahuel0x 1y ago
"IBM and the Holocaust" == "Google and the Gaza Genocide"

70 points by zhengiszen 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

khaledh 1y ago

[flagged]

Gys 1y ago
'Ethics never made anyone rich'?
chneu 1y ago
Because of two things: Money They think they're working for the winning side. Or side that's going to win. As long as they win nobody will care.
new_user_final 1y ago
[flagged]
- dang 1y ago
  Wtf? You can't post like that here and we've banned the account.
immibis 1y ago
Makes money. Also they support it.
westmeal 1y ago
Don't be evil ( unless you can make boat loads of money )

einszwei 1y ago

The timing of the leak is interesting. It might point to the fact that situation on ground in Gaza is dire enough that big companies want some plausible deniability. This is just a speculation though.

immibis 1y ago
[flagged]
- jokoon 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - aaomidi 1y ago
    https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wetenschappers-vrijwel-eensgezind-israel-pleegt-in-gaza-genocide-a4893293 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/05/14/zeven-gerenommeerde-wet... It is one. Literally the experts in this field agree that it is one. At this point, not using that term by the average person is genocide denial. You may have an opinion that it’s not genocide. However you should be ready to take on the people who have made studying genocide their life work.
    - gadilif 1y ago
      The facts are, well, different: As of now: No international court has ruled that genocide has been committed by either side. The term "genocide" is used politically and emotionally by many, but legally it carries a very high burden of proof. The ICJ case and other investigations (e.g., by the International Criminal Court) are ongoing and may shape future judgments.
      - runarberg 1y ago
        For the record no international court has ruled that the Cambodian genocide was a genocide either. The perpetrators were arrested years or decades after the genocide and charged under a special UN endorsed tribunal for various crimes against humanity, but not genocide... That doesn’t mean there was no genocide in Cambodia, obviously. Even in cases where international courts did rule a genocide, such as in Rwanda, it usually happens months, years, or even decades after the fact. In Rwanda it wasn’t until the genocide was officially over where the UN entertained making charges for genocide, with a special court established 4 months later (nov. 1994), initial indictments a year after that (nov. 1995) and it wasn’t until 1996 when the first perpetrators were found guilty of genocide. The Bosnian Genocide tribunal took even longer. In no cases has anybody ever been found guilty of a genocide by an international court during an ongoing genocide. You are right about one thing though. The term genocide is used politically, but not in the way you are arguing. During the Rwandan Gencocide countries—particularly the USA, but also many European countries—avoided the term, and fought hard against using it to describe the horrors in Rwanda, because under the genocide convention they were obligated to take active role in preventing it, which they had no interest in doing. Usually avoiding the term is what politicians do to avoid their responsibilities.

giancarlostoro 1y ago

Google worried it cant control how [insert name of any foreign country] could use their cloud infrastructure. I mean I understand the concerns but they are the same of us giving any other country cloud infrastructure tooling, which doesn't just magically happen to just any country to be fair. If its not Google then it will be any defense contractors and cloud provider that just wants to print dollar bills.

immibis 1y ago

Obvious bullshit is obvious. The project did exactly what it was intended to do.

BrawnyBadger53 1y ago

[flagged]

winterbloom 1y ago
[flagged]
- nixosbestos 1y ago
  [flagged]

thegrim33 1y ago

The OP account has had 72 of their last 90 submissions flagged/killed. How is a situation like this not an automatic, algorithmic, shadow-ban? Why allow someone like this to continue "contributing"?

ath3nd 1y ago
What about the OP's submission strikes you as violating HN's TOS or Code of Conduct? TheIntercept is legit journalism, no need to put "contributing" in quotes.
zaphirplane 1y ago
Don’t play dumb a number of the submissions involve Israel . Why negative submission involving Israel are down voted continues to be a mystery
- coolcase 1y ago
  No mystery really.
zhengiszen 1y ago
Journalism is a cornerstone of democracy. Recommending censorship would only strengthen the fascists among us. You should do like me and confront lies or injustices when you encounter one.
coolcase 1y ago
Looks like the 72/90 is actually from shadow banning. But to answer whose opinions do you want to ban? Who is speaking correctly?

nahuel0x 1y ago

"IBM and the Holocaust" == "Google and the Gaza Genocide"