3 ms·

It's a lose-lose situation for Google to do such a thing. They're not making an argument; they're making policy. I'm under the impression that the policy isn't

It's a lose-lose situation for Google to do such a thing. They're not making an argument; they're making policy. I'm under the impression that the policy isn't up for discussion, in which case it's wise for Google not to pay people to reiterate what we already know.

NotOscarWilde 13y ago
Why should moderate disclosure be a lose-lose situation? If Google has a problem with entering a country that is dependent on the country's laws or policies, explaining the problem to the local citizens could lead to public discourse about the laws and, eventually, change. Zero disclosure is a winning strategy only because people will use their imaginations and think there are valid reasons for the progress being so slow. The people will argue that the reason Google is not telling us is the policy and not the fact that they don't have a good reason. --- This discussion reminds me of the famous quote from Eric Schmidt: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Does that rule apply to Google disclosures as well?
- skj 13y ago
  In context, it was clear that Schmidt was referring to doing "it" using Google services, since Google is subject to the Patriot act, etc.
chilldream 13y ago
The point is, if a company wants the public to forgive them for terrible outcomes, they should have to give the public the evidence that they deserve forgiveness instead of having random people shill for everything they do on spec. It is possible for corporations to make mistakes, or to do bad things, and it's perfectly legitimate to call them out when that appears to be the case. (I also think Google has long past squandered any right to the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see the need to get into that right now)

3 ms·

It's a lose-lose situation for Google to do such a thing. They're not making an argument; they're making policy. I'm under the impression that the policy isn't

by rmrfrmrf 13y ago

NotOscarWilde 13y ago
Why should moderate disclosure be a lose-lose situation? If Google has a problem with entering a country that is dependent on the country's laws or policies, explaining the problem to the local citizens could lead to public discourse about the laws and, eventually, change. Zero disclosure is a winning strategy only because people will use their imaginations and think there are valid reasons for the progress being so slow. The people will argue that the reason Google is not telling us is the policy and not the fact that they don't have a good reason. --- This discussion reminds me of the famous quote from Eric Schmidt: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Does that rule apply to Google disclosures as well?
- skj 13y ago
  In context, it was clear that Schmidt was referring to doing "it" using Google services, since Google is subject to the Patriot act, etc.
chilldream 13y ago
The point is, if a company wants the public to forgive them for terrible outcomes, they should have to give the public the evidence that they deserve forgiveness instead of having random people shill for everything they do on spec. It is possible for corporations to make mistakes, or to do bad things, and it's perfectly legitimate to call them out when that appears to be the case. (I also think Google has long past squandered any right to the benefit of the doubt, but I don't see the need to get into that right now)