151–160 of 418 posts
>2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias. They DO realize that the YouTube recommendation algorithm is a political bias reinforcement machine, right? Like, I think it’s fun to talk trash on google because they’re in an increably powerful position, but this one isn’t even banter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly many US employees were against it. Also Google is a global organization. I don’t believe that corporations should primarily serve the interests of their government, they should serve their users and reflect the attitudes of their employees.
I'm sure many US employees were against it, and they were rightfully exercising their voice. Google may have offices all over the world, but it's an American company, and like people (Corporations are like people, no?), it must be held responsible for its actions. I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience wh…
That sounds antithetical to a lot of freedoms that we hold dear as Americans.
>I would argue that the public should be especially wary of 'global' corporations such as these (Facebook is another one) that suddenly grow a conscience when it suits them.
How do you mean? To paint this in a very cynical light, the sequence of events here was
Google does a thing. Then, many Google employees threaten to quit over that thing (among a bunch of other potential downsides). So, Google agrees to stop doing the thing
Is "Google changes its policy to maintain its workforce" something that you should be wary of? That seems like reasonable corporate governance.
On the other hand, you can paint this in a much less cynical light, where the sequence was
Google does something that is potentially antithetical to its values. Employees object to this thing, claiming that it really is antithetical to those values. As a result, Google reaffirms its values and makes them more explicit, promising not to do the thing.
In other words, a very anti-google view sees this as a move for retention, and a pro-google view sees this as a reaffirmation of the "conscience" (read: values) that Google already had. I don't see how your worries apply here.
(Am a Googler, but that isn't particularly relevant to this post)
So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it. Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there…
So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it. Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there…
I noticed there was one particularly phrase missing from Apple's WWDC this year: artificial intelligence. It wasn't mentioned one time. Never in the presentations, none of the talk titles had it included either. Machine Learning was mentioned and Apple also released many updates related to it, but never did they call it artificially intelligent, or use the phrase artificial intelligence. Not a single time. Go ahead a…
So, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt if they have a change of heart upon reconsidering an issue, but this coming after the fact rings a bit hollow to me. I think the only principle at play here is that it became a PR issue. That's fine, but let's be honest about it. Early emails between Google execs framed this project only in terms of revenue and potential PR backlash. As far as we're aware, there…
I doubt that Google spelling out their moral stance is intended to convince you right away that they're all good now. It's a public standard that they're setting for themselves. If you think their actions don't match their words, you now have concrete terms and principles to critique and compare with. It's a benchmark to which employees and the public can hold them accountable.
They already had a public standard that people actually believed in for a good many years: *Don't be evil."
They've been palpably moving away from that each year, and it's been obvious in their statements, documents, as well as actions.
Such statement absolutely relieves the pressure came from the public, hence law makers. Can we make sure big companies are legally accountable for what they claim to the public? Otherwise they can say just whatever persuades people to be less vigilant about what they are doing, which is so deceptive and irresponsible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a similar "comming to jesus moment" with Google in China. They saw how they had to do the right thing after years of censoring and manipulating data for the chinese government, but only after they got massively hacked, blocked, and essentially forced out of china... However a good thing done for the wrong reasons is still a good thing.
Hmm not really. Google is bad and they should feel bad, you're just handwaving away how bad they are because you like them. Imagine I wanted to have somebody killed and I hired a hitman to kill them and when I go to pay the hitman I accidentally wire the money to the wrong place and inadvertantly pay off the victims mortgage instead of paying the hitman. Now the victim doesn't die and gets their mortgage paid off. I'…
That's an odd analogy considering the the would-be conspirator didn't make a decision to not go through with it. Do you believe Google published this article by accident? And really; comparing Google's actions to murder... c'mon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm convinced that Google is touting its' 'principles' with a hackneyed blog post probably written by some PR flack. As an American, I'm disappointed, and positively enraged by the hubris on display here. A bunch of (non-US) employees have pressured Google and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. See this for an alternative viewpoint: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary…
> and therefore compromised the national interests of the United States. Did I miss something? Was the Selective Service Act amended to extend to corporations, too? Was Google drafted? Last I checked, cooperation with the United States military has been purely on a volunteer basis since Vietnam.
If you believe in corporate personhood, then Google, Facebook are definitely villains --- avoiding taxes, running ads from enemy states etc, while maintaining a shroud of secrecy and non-accountability --- positively treasonous acts if committed by a person. If you do not, then what right is violated by making corporations subject to the Selective Service Act?