Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 372 posts

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#331

Post by tlear »

_khau wrote: post #272
tlear wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it as how Americans are completely tolerant of communists while people who lived under communist rule tend to be not so much. Americans have not experienced Cheka, Holodomor or Cultural Revolution. They also have not experienced Taiping rebellion or any of the other massive slaughters that happened in China over religion. Think 30 year war except it happened quite recently. Would I be ok now with now with gr…

> Think of it as how Americans are completely tolerant of communists What?

What was it 17-18% of social science profs that self identify as Marxists?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.147...

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#332

Post by president »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #312
president wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all FAANG are created equal

You're repeatedly arguing that Apple employees are prisoners in their jobs because they only work for the 4th or 5th most impressive looking company to have on one's CV instead of the first? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

It's not really as far-fetched as it sounds, although I am exaggerating as I mentioned earlier. Have you ever spoken to people that worked at Apple vs Google? There is quite a difference in mentality.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#333

Post by longerthoughts »

antidesitter wrote: post #330
longerthoughts wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. I would wager that most people have never bothered to ask the question because morality is useful either way. Even if your claim is true, most people also believed common myths like the earth being flat at one point, so that’s hardly a compelling argument. I’m not saying morality has no place, only that it’s not a physica…

> You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. You're right. But if it's a question of evidence, I can certainly provide it. The fact that most people in the world adhere to one of the major religions [1] [2], which have moral duties, a fortiori implies that your view isn't the most common. Even this is vastly under-counting, of course, since it excludes humanists a…

Thank you for the survey results - these are genuinely fascinating. I acknowledge that you weren't arguing that my view is incorrect, only that it's not a given, and I was debating a point that you weren't making. I buy your argument and agree that most people, if asked, would probably give an answer more closely aligned with moral realism than not. What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling?

On a separate note, I take issue with the suggestion that an individual identifying with a major religion qualifies as adherence to its principles. This is nitpicking and doesn't impact the larger point you're making, but I think it's an important distinction in general.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#334

Post by antidesitter »

longerthoughts wrote: post #333
antidesitter wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can claim that it’s not the most common or most plausible view, but that doesn’t make it so. You're right. But if it's a question of evidence, I can certainly provide it. The fact that most people in the world adhere to one of the major religions [1] [2], which have moral duties, a fortiori implies that your view isn't the most common. Even this is vastly under-counting, of course, since it excludes humanists a…

Thank you for the survey results - these are genuinely fascinating. I acknowledge that you weren't arguing that my view is incorrect, only that it's not a given, and I was debating a point that you weren't making. I buy your argument and agree that most people, if asked, would probably give an answer more closely aligned with moral realism than not. What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling? On a…

> I take issue with the suggestion that an individual identifying with a major religion qualifies as adherence to its principles.

I agree that this an important distinction, but a person identifying with a major religion is a strong prima facie reason for thinking they're moral realists. Keep in mind that believing there are some moral facts is a much, much weaker position than believing all or even most moral claims of their religion are true.

> What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling?

My personal favorite are Moorean arguments of the form:

(1) Torturing people for fun is morally wrong.

(2) If there's at least one moral fact, then moral realism is true.

(3) Therefore, moral realism is true.

You can replace (1) with your favorite moral fact, such as

(1) The Nanjing massacre [1] was morally wrong.

(1) The torture and murder of Kelly Anne Bates [2] was morally wrong.

(1) The torture and murder of Unit 731 victims [3] was morally wrong.

and have the argument go through. The key point is that, as far as I know, there's no argument against moral realism whose premises are all more plausible than (1).

Another class of arguments are so-called partners in crime arguments [4][5][6], which link moral reasoning with prudential and epistemic reasoning.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre#Massacre

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kelly_Anne_Bates#Mur...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Activities

[4] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/000484008026364...

[5] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2016.1...

[6] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2017.1...

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#335

Post by _8j50 »

guelo wrote: post #76
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I wasn't refering to what the UN thinks but what is universally accepted as rights humans have. For example liberty isn't a human right,neither is equal treatment. But food,shelter,dignity are human rights. These are rights humans get just for being human this includes prisoners,soldiers and the like.

If you say freedom of expression is a human right,then how come no soldier or prisoner is afforded that right? Did they forfeit their humanity? If so,by what authority did they forfeit their own humanity?

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#336

Post by _8j50 »

gmanley wrote: post #73
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

What's moral or not isn't static. Plenty of people believe the suppression of speech is morally wrong. Your distinction between what is morally wrong and what is Socially unacceptable is unclear. Of course companies don't have the ability to directly change laws in sovereign countries but they can definitely influence them, just like people in mass can. Whether or not this will have any effect on China I lean towards…

I should have clarified then,I meant morally wrong according to the the moral views of the person claiming wrong was done. If I argue Google is wrong for moral reasons then I need to argue as to why my standard of morality is accurate and applies to Google.

For your second point,companies do influence policies but they have no right to force a policy. For example,Google can say "we're pulling out of country X because they don't have this policy" that's arm twisting and in disregard to the sovreignity of the country and its people.

Google isn't irreplacable in China,Alibaba+tencent compete with them heavily anyways.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#337

Post by _8j50 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #100
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

I think you've taken the legal positivist philosophy (what's authorized by those who have authority is law, regardless of morality) and tried to indicate that the existence of said authorization overrides the moral and normative considerations of the actions in question (the law is good - a mere exercise of authority - and you don't get to complain). I think that's a bit of a naive stretch.

Quite the opposite actually. No law overrides moral convictions of a person. But companies operate under the law. Where the objection is not moral legal authority must be observed and disregard for a nation's laws and customs is disregard and disrespect towards all of it's people.

Where the objection is moral,if your moral worldview has an a moral authority suoerseding a nation state,that moral authority must be obeyed (for example,I have my God as an absolute moral authority with absolute authority over all things)

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#338

Post by _8j50 »

int_19h wrote: post #198
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. That is not the question at hand. If China or Iran want to implement censorship, Google can't stop them. The question is whether Google should help them. And since Google is not a Chinese or an Iranian corporation, but rather an American one, USA as a sovereign country - and, since it'…

So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral. American law does not define morality. Based on american law,no law is being broken by Google.

If you're saying it's citizens get to decide morality,then which citizens? Is morality a matter of popularity? For example some might consider Google' core business practices thar involve stalking users immoral. On a different note most adults consider adultery and greed immoral but neither is illegal and you don't see people quitting companies because the company is too greedy.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#339

Post by _8j50 »

JohnFen wrote: post #99
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

"corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country." True, but they do get to decide whether or not it's acceptable to do business in a country.

Yes,eithe they're in or out. They don't get to step in half way and twist arms.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#340

Post by longerthoughts »

antidesitter wrote: post #334
longerthoughts wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the survey results - these are genuinely fascinating. I acknowledge that you weren't arguing that my view is incorrect, only that it's not a given, and I was debating a point that you weren't making. I buy your argument and agree that most people, if asked, would probably give an answer more closely aligned with moral realism than not. What's the case for moral realism that makes it so compelling? On a…

> I take issue with the suggestion that an individual identifying with a major religion qualifies as adherence to its principles. I agree that this an important distinction, but a person identifying with a major religion is a strong prima facie reason for thinking they're moral realists. Keep in mind that believing there are some moral facts is a much, much weaker position than believing all or even most moral claims…

The trouble I have with that line of reasoning is that while I believe torturing people for fun is morally wrong (along with all proposed substitutes for (1)), that only proves that I believe that, not that it is a physical reality in the absence of our perception of morals. To be fair, I think the burden of proof for arguing that objective morals exist is incredibly high and I can't think of anything that could reasonably prove it. I'm reading up on partners in crime arguments - looks like there's an incredible wealth of related debate to peruse.
Post reply on HN