So, the logic of this protest is that Chinese people do not deserve even incremental improvement, a huge improvement by the way, in their lives?
We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
351–360 of 888 posts
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#352Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, clearly, the larger issue here is the false idea that the USA is a proponent of free speech or human rights. I would certainly never in a million years hope anyone would seriously claim the US to be the greatest country in the world.
I think that the USA is definitely a proponent of free speech, and actually that it takes it to extremes. Pretty much the only speech outlawed is child pornography and that which a reasonable person would see as inciting imminent violence. That's a pretty high bar, higher than any other country I've ever heard of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#354Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#355There are not many Chinese names in the signed letter, and I can fully understand. If you are a Chinese H1B or green card holder, and you signed this letter, it is almost certain the Chinese government will contact your family in China.
Can confirm, China watches its citizens abroad, closely, and in person sometimes. Their families can be affected, and if they go back home to visit, there can be problems.
The difference would be: you might not know you are lying while I do. We are doing the same thing, confirm something not conformable. Theoretically that's lying
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#356Pretty bold. A lot of people are saying this wont work, but speaking from my own experience, you'd be surprised what companies are amicable to when it comes to business. Im an engine mechanic by trade, and our shops handle bids for cash strapped local governments that outsource their motor pool maintenance. We do things like fire trucks and police cars, but we were working on a new regional idea as a "service center"…
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#357And if the employees placed thier values over profits, why are they still there? I wonder if they are going to refuse their stock based compensation?
That said, having worked at Google there are many folks who were there prior to this shift (and unwittingly assisted by doing nothing previously). I don't blame them for trying to correct course and actually hope they can do so while remaining at a workplace they have spent so much time and effort developing and integrating within.
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google has literally thousands of engineers. A significant percentage of those engineers leave every year as part of normal attrition. Google is certainly capable of dealing with the fallout these folks leaving without feeling a thing. While it's true there are some "one-in-a-million" type engineers that work at Google, I don't see any of the well-known ones on this list. All that said, I commend the folks who signed…
Does a few engineers leaving hurt google? No. Does the massive PR storm that will never be erased from the Internet cause problems for them down the road? Absolutely. The fact this is posted on HN and the regular gauntlet of tech sites is enough to have a major impact on their recruiting. I, like many of the people here, am a frequent target for Google recruiters and Dragonfly is more than enough for me to turn down…
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually distorts the reality... different results on mobile vs pc, VPN, different users, etc...
Which reality is it distorting? Is the old desktop search reality? Why is it more real than mobile results? In truth, none of them are reality. Google Search is an algorithmicaly curated list of web pages - it’s an unfortunate error to believe it represents any reality other than Google’s opinion of what its users want in that second.
That was also true when search results were purely based on terms entered, barring the domain name affecting the default language, and user configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
> A filter bubble – a term coined by Internet activist Eli Pariser – is a state of intellectual isolation that allegedly can result from personalized searches when a website algorithm selectively guesses what information a user would like to see based on information about the user, such as location, past click-behavior and search history. As a result, users become separated from information that disagrees with their viewpoints, effectively isolating them in their own cultural or ideological bubbles.
I remember when was totally normal to settle how a word was spelled by looking what spelling had how many results. I'm not saying that wasn't silly, but I actually remember people actively using that "consensus reality" in forums, all the time. "how did you find that", "I entered X and then it was the third result", "oh yeah I see, thanks". The traditional exception was things blocked on youtube in various countries, but otherwise we took it for granted that if you visit a certain public URL, you get the page someone else would get.
That doesn't mean one confuses those Google search results with reality anymore than every person in the cinema seeing the same movie means they confuse it with reality. It just means that experience is part of the common world they inhabit. When I go into a library, the selection of books there is rather arbitrary, but that's still very different from there just being a clerk who might recommend one book to me, to then lie to someone else and pretend to not know that book.
Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find the way you phrase this super-alienating. If anything, it pushes me away from your cause. 1. Comes across as ad-hominem 2. Comes across as emotional/pedantic 3. For example, yes "pornography" is censored on broadcast TV, but many other things aren't. There are obviously degrees of censorship. 4. If your goal is to convince people that things are more censored than they realize you might want to cite some real…
I don't think the user you are responding intends his comment to be putting forward some watertight argument. It sounds light-hearted to me. It's puzzling to me that you'd pick on this one particular comment to produce a detailed, five-point rebuttal in a thread like this one where there are so many other more important targets to go after.
Here's my motivation - I think there are actually some pretty scary problems out there. However, I think it is possible to talk about an important issue in a way so emotional that it actually backfires and creates a negative impression of those who care about an issue.
For example, Alex Jones is right to lament the pesticide atrazine that changes frogs sexes [1], but by virtue of being Alex Jones actually may look a wider swath of environmentally-conscious look somewhat unreliable by association.
Another example is Al Gore: even though he had an important message on climate change his manner was so distasteful that it's hard to argue he helped the cause.
When I see someone who agrees with my beliefs but comes across as hysterical I try to metaphorically "hold a mirror up" so they can learn to phrase their message in a way that won't drive people away.