101–110 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
Many people believe abortion is murder. That doesn’t make it so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OTOH: forcing every country in the world to obey google is no better.
Google doesn't have armies and police forces. It can't "force" anyone to do anything, unlike governments. Deciding not to provide its services is not a use of force from google.
> Google said it was willing to ‘work with’ Turkey, but as a partner and not as a corporation working within a sovereign nation. It simply said it doesn’t like Turkey’s law, and so it will stop providing Android phones for an entire country. In other words, Google has a private sanctions regime against smaller countries. The fact that Google even has the leverage to blackout an entire country like this--and that it's…
> Both Android and Chrome need to be spun out--at this point they are basically public utilities. And then what: future development paid for by taxes, done by public servants who can't be fired? A House Committee on Chrome's WhatWG standards compliance?
Perhaps spun into some sort of not-for-profit, like Firefox. It's a difficult problem. Most options seem bad, but the current situation is bad too.
Perhaps I am not understanding the implications, but is Google supposed to be forced to make its phones available in Turkey?
Yea there's alot of emotional bickering that comes up when a company says "we won't do business with X". >In other words, Google has a private sanctions regime against smaller countries. With this stupid statement, my company must have a private sanctions regime agaisnt half the world
Your company probably isn't as important to the world as Google. To the point, though: go read the Reuters article[0] linked from TFA. They're not pulling out of Turkey; they're refusing to license software to "business partners" making products for Turkey unless those partners lock search to Google. Is your company really boycotting half the countries of the world because they have rules in place regarding your busi…
Google isn't that important to the world. China gets by just fine without it and not having access is mainly a mild inconvenience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many believe internet access is a basic human right. [1] Thus, many believe that pulling out of a country where your device is one of the sole affordable ways of reaching the internet is tantamount to a human rights violation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access
Going from "access to internet" to "selling Android phones" is a pretty big leap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s not. We didn’t give Microsoft a free pass when they did monopolistic moves. Google should not be treated differently.
You're moving the goalposts. The comment above yours says (and quite rightly) that Google does not have the power of a government and shouldn't be considered as such. And your response is "but Microsoft!".
In today's world, some of the corporations size and influence allows them to behave the way the want and, I see this as problematic.
Google may not be killing anyone who disagrees with them and, they can freely decide where to conduct business. I have no problem with these points.
However, I see Google's behavior as problematic. Google's response dşffers from country to country. They have a similar problem in EU (more specifically European Economic Area) and, they have implemented a selection screen similar to Microsoft's browser & search engine selection screen. Turkey might not be in EU but, as a country it has every right to level the playing field for the companies (in this case Yandex and Google) in order to increase the competition.
The but Microsoft! response is coming from the change of tone in response to this issue. When Microsoft became the monopoly and pushed Sun Microsystems and other browsers around, the unanimous vote was to divide or somewhat stop them. When Google does a similar thing, response changes with respect to country which Google has a dispute. I find this wrong.
P.S.: I'm a bit tired and English is not my native language. If I messed the writing, please point it out. I'll try to clarify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The war on drugs was created by the Nixon regime as a way to neutralize threatening political movements like Black Power and the Hippie Peace movement. This seems like one of those Illuminati/Knights Templar conspiracy theories. I don't buy it. I'm imagining Nixon's cabinet in a super secret meeting: Nixon: "Those hippies and negroes. They are growing too powerful. Soon, democrats will dominate every level of gover…
Well, that's not too far off from what probably happened. According to former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman: "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We coul…
>Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.
>"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.
>Ehrlichman's comments did not surface until now after Baum remembered them while going back through old notes for the Harper's story.
>Baum interviewed Ehrlichman and others for his 1996 book "Smoke and Mirrors," but said he left out the Ehrlichman comment from the book because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author.
How convenient. He was sitting on a massive admission because it "didn't fit the style".