5 ms·

Bang on! I don't think you are being cynical, you are being true! People across borders should stop being emotional over an advertisement by a multinational cor

Bang on! I don't think you are being cynical, you are being true! People across borders should stop being emotional over an advertisement by a multinational corporation. If they really have to become emotional, there is plenty of literature on this topic in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. And if they even want to take actions, there are many NGOs trying to ease up the visa procedure, raising awareness among the people etc. Talking about the technology, I think some years down the line all this will become some kind of "ambient technology", if you know what I mean.

VMG 13y ago
Do you prefer the generic "people fiddling with their devices on a sunny day, female voice playing buzzword bingo in the background"? Props for Google for being ballsy. I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  I don't see how in any way Google is being "ballsy" here. It is a safe, soppy and relationships-oriented ad - in what world can that ever be "ballsy"? Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment. That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it [0], suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-bu...
  - chris_wot 13y ago
    Yeah, except for the fact that they are dealing with relationships torn apart by partition.
    - r0h1n 13y ago
      They are not "dealing" with those relationships, but merely milking them.
- ecthiender 13y ago
  IMHO, there is nothing ballsy about an ad; at the end of the day it is profit vs you. There are selling, you are getting emotional and consuming, exactly what they want. :) Well, some people tend to interpret in whatever way it suits them, but I don't think I meant evil when I said multi-national. If you get it, I was just referring to the scale of the company.
saraid216 13y ago
It would not surprise me if Google actually was taking action. They've been known to chime in on national politics here and there.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
  What magical action did you have in mind?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I don't, really. My point is that Google has shown that they're willing to act. Here's the article that was submitted to HN about a recent thing: http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Category=24# http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Ca... Here's the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162
    - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
      I understand what you mean, but these two conflicts are nowhere near the same scale. Social rights issues have a lot of work done by lots of dedicated people over decades, until they reach a tipping point. A for-profit corporation, no matter how good at marketing, will not stake their financial health by going against massive consensus, they just don't have the political/financial freedom to do that. If they had to pick between India and Pakistan in an actual war, they would take sides according to their interest or get out of both, but that's about it. Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.
      - saraid216 13y ago
        No, I agree. In no way did I mean to suggest that Google was going to take the role of a UN with teeth, to mediate between different countries. It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)

VMG 13y ago

Do you prefer the generic "people fiddling with their devices on a sunny day, female voice playing buzzword bingo in the background"? Props for Google for being ballsy. I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.

r0h1n 13y ago
I don't see how in any way Google is being "ballsy" here. It is a safe, soppy and relationships-oriented ad - in what world can that ever be "ballsy"? Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment. That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it [0], suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value. [0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-burden-google-expands-use-of-the-double-irish/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-bu...
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Yeah, except for the fact that they are dealing with relationships torn apart by partition.
  - r0h1n 13y ago
    They are not "dealing" with those relationships, but merely milking them.
ecthiender 13y ago
IMHO, there is nothing ballsy about an ad; at the end of the day it is profit vs you. There are selling, you are getting emotional and consuming, exactly what they want. :) Well, some people tend to interpret in whatever way it suits them, but I don't think I meant evil when I said multi-national. If you get it, I was just referring to the scale of the company.

saraid216 13y ago

It would not surprise me if Google actually was taking action. They've been known to chime in on national politics here and there.

wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
What magical action did you have in mind?
- saraid216 13y ago
  I don't, really. My point is that Google has shown that they're willing to act. Here's the article that was submitted to HN about a recent thing: http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Category=24# http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Ca... Here's the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162
  - wrongc0ntinent 13y ago
    I understand what you mean, but these two conflicts are nowhere near the same scale. Social rights issues have a lot of work done by lots of dedicated people over decades, until they reach a tipping point. A for-profit corporation, no matter how good at marketing, will not stake their financial health by going against massive consensus, they just don't have the political/financial freedom to do that. If they had to pick between India and Pakistan in an actual war, they would take sides according to their interest or get out of both, but that's about it. Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      No, I agree. In no way did I mean to suggest that Google was going to take the role of a UN with teeth, to mediate between different countries. It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)