311–320 of 378 posts
Look, if anyone wants to business in China, they would have to comply to the demands of government there, that's no question. It's common sense and nobody can avoid this. I think the question we need to ask is what motivates Google to return to this market? Does the costs and benefits analysis report show enough evidences to justify this action?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those companies were making special tools to identify and remove said garments, then yes.
That sounds like a hard line to draw. A tool that makes it easier to look at lots of footage, which happens to get used for garment enforcement, is that a "garment related tool"? How do we factor in the French government's intention to build its own garment related tools on top of a camera's general purpose interfaces? What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US? My goal here is…
By itself, no.
If you're making it specifically for the government that has stated that it intends to use it in that manner, or if, based on their past actions, a reasonable person with the same amount of knowledge as you would deduce that it will be used that way, then yes.
> What if the camera company itself is in France, but it's _suppliers_ are in the US?
Same thing. If suppliers didn't know, they're not responsible (but once we told them, they know, and from there on they'll be judged accordingly). If they did know, or reasonably believed, then they're complicit.
> My goal here isn't just to be annoying and nitpicky. It's to try to make it clear that there are a million different questions interacting here.
There is, but this isn't really any different from law in general. Governing the behavior of people is always going to be nitpicky; that's why we have centuries of experience with law and its application. Most of these issues have been tackled there, and while they're not resolved to perfection, they are resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Why should Google suffer" 1. I reject any notion that Google is somehow "suffering" if they don't go into China. 2. You're making it seem like Google is entitled to all the business it wants. That's not true in the least.
2. You're making it seem like Google is entitled to all the business it wants. That's not true in the least. Why not?
So, if we as a society decide that American companies shall not aid and abet human rights violations elsewhere in the world, then that's what they do. Or else they can dissolve and go incorporate in China or wherever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
taking initiative to participate in maintaining a malicious status quo is being malicious. google isn't being coerced here, they're volunteering to help with oppression. put differently: what do you call an accountant who sings up to perpetuate the status quo of a criminal enterprise by updating their books? guilty. but they were "just extending the services of accounting to a new organization while maintaining the s…
US and Canada sell weapons and military equipment to Saudi Arabia. Sufficient moral outrage is hardly bandied about in the case of such deals.
I actually applaud Poulson for leaving Google in protest of Google's Chinese business practices. Having mentioned that, I think I have to part ways with him when he implies that the correct way to "fix" this is to have the government come in and make these sorts of business decisions for the company. I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Especially when it looks like this whole thing is…
Government can already block the sale of companies, and whether they can sell certain kinds of products to certain countries. I don't think Google should be given a "free ride" to make whatever decisions they want just because they are a popular tech company.
Want to be an American company? Obey the US Government's laws and decrees. If not, they can relocate to the UK (and obey UK laws and decrees) or to the Bahamas (and obey Bahamian law and decrees) and become a non-US based entity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As is, this is easy to sort out: the Bill of Rights restricts the actions of the US Government and no one else As a matter of law, this is correct. It's true that the Bill of Rights is only legally binding in America. But we are not here arguing that the Bill of Rights aught to be binding on the whole world. The argument is that Congress ought to treat the Bill of Rights as if it were binding on the whole world. Th…
I'm still confused about the connection back to Google in China, if that's implied here. I absolutely agree that the US government's behavior regarding detention, torture, rendition, and so on was horrifying and immoral, and it betrays an utter lack of conscience in most everyone involved. And, I agree that the acts remain dubiously legal at best. For American-administered treatment, the determination of combatant st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it a little disturbing how we can have laws that stipulate how companies have to treat their workers and conduct their business but as soon as we start talking about ensuring what we consider "rights" are being taken care of overseas it's too far. Not quite as disgusting as how we ended up with torture, including waterboarding, indefinite detainment, and a whole slew of fun activities in the early aughts that…
I can appreciate the sentiment here, but I'm reluctant to accept it on a purely practical basis. Which is to say: how do we make that happen? What does it look like? The idea of inalienable rights is theoretical at best, because a large fraction of the world is alienated from any right one cares to name. As an assertion that humans deserve these things, that they should be demanded without compromise or compensation?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't believe in the government obliging businesses to do things. Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Upholding your obligations is a requirement to receiving the protection of the government as you conduct your business. It's a two-way street. > Especially when it looks like this whole thing is Google specific. The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopo…
>Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards. Completely irrelevant. There are no US laws against private companies building censorship tools in the US, let alone in China.
Let us all discuss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really: "When companies become too large it quickly becomes a game of anti-competitive actions and distorted markets" Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out.
>Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out. Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Also, only one of these groups generally has the ability to use violence against you, and if the other group has that ability, it is only because the first allowed it to be delegated.
Monopolies are hard to avoid doing business, and some form of proportional representation reduces the number of people who have to agree with you before you change the makeup of a government.