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

Cowards

uncrunched.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 240 posts

Re: Cowards

#141

Post by dasil003 »

vadiml wrote: post #118
dasil003 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoah, hold on, I don't think anyone is saying this is easy or there aren't risks for Zuckerberg. However to say he shouldn't stand up against tyranny and abuse of government power because he has responsibility to parties x, y and z is exactly the line of thinking that allows totalitarian governments to thrive. Government power is not absolute, that power is derived from the people. No one person can stand up to the…

Risking one’s own well being to help the community is basically a definition of an altruistic behaviour. Nobody and i mean NOBODY can reach and keep the position of CEO of big international corporation by exhibiting altruistic tendencies. The environment is too competitive and it promotes egoism and punishes altruism. (BTW, The same reasoning stand for political leadership too). So, I don’t think we can really expect…

Okay, let's not call on powerful people to do the right thing then. I mean they were the ones with the ambition to influence the world, so it's pointless to even ask them to have some morals.

Re: Cowards

#142

Post by soofaloofa »

It seems like I am in the minority here but I see nothing wrong with making a required government process more efficient. The companies in question would have to provide this information anyways and streamlining the process seems logical.

Re: Cowards

#143

Post by Zigurd »

wwweston wrote: post #83
sage_joch wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the hell does this even mean? It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law.

> It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law. Personally, I think they found a way to tell the truth without breaking the law. They apparently said what they were required to say, to the letter. People found it transparently suspicious. Now the secret appears to be out. Could be an accident, I suppose.

I don't think it looked quite so good. The "no direct access to our servers" line spoken by all four CEOs sounded like something out of North Korea, but they all also had the option to send this message through a relatively faceless spokesperson instead of throwing their own credibility on the pyre.

None of them addressed the incongruity of having all the major news outlets contradicting them, after apparently finding the major points of the story supportable.

Re: Cowards

#144

Post by AnthonyMouse »

einhverfr wrote: post #133
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The government would go after Facebook as an entity when Zukerberg speaks out. You honestly think the government is going to go after a multibillion dollar international corporation? Doing that is what gets the government into trouble, because the corporation has the resources to defend itself. And they're clearly not going to destroy Facebook and Google in any event -- can you imagine the public outrage, to say not…

More likely though they'd go after corporate officers for real or alleged criminal behavior (think of the "honest services fraud" charges against Jeff Skilling, reversed by the Supreme Court on the basis that the law was being stretched well beyond breaking point) and refer to the SEC for investigations.... The government has in the past gone after some extremely powerful corporations and when they had the endurance…

Again, corporate officers of large corporations generally have the resources to defend themselves. They can harass you if you're the only one, which is why everyone needs to do it.

>AT&T's monopoly

They spent 50 years trying to break them up and within 20 years after that they had pretty much bought each other back up again and continue to do so as time passes.

You should also note that the public hated AT&T because they were the prototypical example of an abusive monopolist. It's a different story when the reason for the campaign is that the corporation is going to bat for the public against government overreach.

There is also the matter of Citizens United -- it's extremely unfortunate when the government legitimately wants to attack oil companies or other evildoers, but it works just as well (if not more so) when the corporation is doing right and the government is wrong.

Re: Cowards

#145

Post by Zigurd »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #84
scythe wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Y'know, I'd like to believe I'd do that in this situation, too. But people are more generous in theory than in practice. You have to realize: Mark Zuckerberg isn't just looking out for Mark Zuckerberg by posting what he did. He has a family, a social life, and a whole lot of people at Facebook who depend on him. To whom, perhaps, it would not be fair for Zuck to martyr himself on the great gallows of the United State…

Or they simply know more than we do. Maybe they've gotten the answers to "Why?" that we want and that convinced them? That's the "conspiracy" that almost worries me more. Not that I hold any real faith in such a thought.

In how many instances in history has "We don't tell you for your own good." ever worked out to be true once the facts come out?

Re: Cowards

#146

Post by FiloSottile »

@Pinboard: "If any of these companies had spine, they would have sent the data they were ordered to disclose on iomega zip drives. Click click click"

This.

Re: Cowards

#147

Post by waterlesscloud »

Zigurd wrote: post #143
wwweston wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means that if telling the truth is illegal, they should have the courage to break the law. Personally, I think they found a way to tell the truth without breaking the law. They apparently said what they were required to say, to the letter. People found it transparently suspicious. Now the secret appears to be out. Could be an accident, I suppose.

I don't think it looked quite so good. The "no direct access to our servers" line spoken by all four CEOs sounded like something out of North Korea, but they all also had the option to send this message through a relatively faceless spokesperson instead of throwing their own credibility on the pyre. None of them addressed the incongruity of having all the major news outlets contradicting them, after apparently findin…

It makes sense to me that Zuckerberg and Page came out personally. The idea that all their data is open to snooping is an existential threat to their companies. If true, their user bases (and thus revenues) would plummet. They absolutely had to deny it in the strongest terms possible.

Re: Cowards

#148

Post by wslh »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #23

An article that waxes poetic, yet is so very hollow and devoid of realism. What would you have these companies do? Band together in a mighty ring of technological resources and begin a Privacy Revolution? This is unrealistic. As an American, I am saddened and angered by the recent news of the past two days. I am disgusted with what our government has done - what it has hidden from us, to take advantage of us unawares…

> What would you have these companies do? Band together in a mighty ring of technological resources and begin a Privacy Revolution?

If I remember well Google was courageous enough confronting China.

Re: Cowards

#149

Post by bernardlunn »

jamespo wrote: post #126
fijal wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

This isn't reddit. It also isn't particularly relevant.

This story is no longer just a tech story.

Re: Cowards

#150

Post by StavrosK »

mtgx wrote: post #64
jmduke wrote: post #2

There's a meme on Reddit that revolves around 'so brave': basically calling people/posts/comments out for obvious pandering. This reads like a pastiche of Keith Olbermann, all bravado and empty gusto. Arrington writes: What has these people, among the wealthiest on the planet, so scared that they find themselves engaging in these verbal gymnastics to avoid telling a simple truth? and then acknowledges that doing so,…

His point is basically this: “All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” ― Edmund Burke That's so true. If they came out now, the country would be better for it. But they are deciding to be accomplices of the out of control and abusive government. I thought Google, at least, would be better than this, after the whole China situation.

> If they came out now, the country would be better for it.

It's easy to ask for other people to fight for your rights. What are you doing about it?

Post reply on HN