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

361–370 of 372 posts

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

#361

Post by antidesitter »

longerthoughts wrote: post #340
antidesitter wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 reas…

Hope you find this material useful. The way I look at it is the other way around: The burden of proof lies squarely on the person who denies such an obvious proposition as (1). The same is true for similarly obvious propositions like "there is an external world which I can learn about through my senses" and "inductive reasoning is a valid way of attaining knowledge", which underpin the scientific enterprise and, moreover, any basis for critiquing (1) itself. One way to capture this is through the principle of phenomenal conservatism [1][2][3] as formulated by philosopher Michael Huemer. He has also written a book on the subject called Ethical Intuitionism.

[1] https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEPCA

[2] https://philpapers.org/rec/HUECPC

[3] https://www.iep.utm.edu/phen-con/

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

#362

Post by _8j50 »

guelo wrote: post #349
_8j50 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

You're saying your definition of human rights is more universally accepted than the UN's?

Not my definition but whatever is actually universally accepted. You'd find a large majority of people outside the west don't think free speech is a human right.

Human right as in rights you have for being a human,not a membet of a specific nation or group but rights you are born with. UN defines human rights based on what member states agree is a human right based on voting and electiond. Universally means by nearly every sane and rational human,not by a simple majority.

Good example: most people agree rape is wrong because it's a terrible thing to happen to person and it isn't acceptable. However,the right to not get raped is not a right you have simply for being a human but rather socieities agrees it shouldn't happen to anyone. You'd find marital rape is unprosecutable in some countries and perfectly legal in the west even in the last few centuries. I.E.: people decided it wad bad.

Otoh: a person can eat(if they find food),sleep,and be alive because they're human.

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

#363

Post by user2426679 »

fipple wrote: post #251
reimertz wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

It would completely set up my family and children for life. I’d get to quit my job and spend all day with my kids. If some people I don’t know get fucked over for that, whatever. And that kind of thinking is why the world is such a wretched place. But I can’t say I wouldn’t jump at the opportunity.

Please be honest and admit that this is solely about yourself; your kids having nothing to do with this except with respect to your own benefit. Even Walter White "did everything for his family."

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

#364

Post by ethbro »

tinus_hn wrote: post #352
ethbro wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me evil that cannot be justified with enough words, and I'll show you an uncreative salesperson.

Sounds so deep, yet means absolutely nothing. A great piece of marijuana ‘wisdom’.

To elaborate for you, I was saying that with enough words anything can be justified.

Ergo, in response to your previous post, one of two things is true. (1) There is no true evil in the world. Or (2) one should be suspicious of elaborate arguments, because they're often coming from people paid to defend profitable evil.

The counterargument to (2) would be "Well, 'good' has PR too." But I think it's objectively demonstrable that evil pays much better.

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

#365

Post by int_19h »

jayd16 wrote: post #323
int_19h wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the difference between not actively resisting something that is morally wrong, and actively assisting in its implementation.

Maybe I'm missing a part of the plan but caching what was already going to be censored anyway doesn't seem that much further of a step. Is it that the censorship is more hidden? If they had a "show censored results" checkbox would that be acceptable? Or is Google search currently blocked entirely and trying to get unblocked is the moral dilemma? I'm just trying to understand the moral difference.

> Maybe I'm missing a part of the plan but caching what was already going to be censored anyway doesn't seem that much further of a step.

If you are going to deliberately kill someone who you know is going to be murdered by someone else anyway, before they do that, are you a murderer?

I would dare say that most people would say "yes". The law certainly sees it that way.

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

#366

Post by int_19h »

_8j50 wrote: post #338
int_19h wrote: post #198

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. 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…

> So, it's citizens get to decide what is legal not what's moral.

The citizens get to decide both for themselves. Then they translate that to public policy in various ways - by voting for people who they expect to pass laws on what they consider illegal, and by e.g. boycotting companies that do what they consider immoral.

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

#367

Post by londons_explore »

dyarosla wrote: post #171
londons_explore wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were other, bigger, non-public reasons.

Care to elaborate?

You'll probably have to wait for Larry or Sergey to write their memoirs...

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

#368

Post by natch »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #307
natch wrote: post #234

My guess is they will just switch to doing a pilot project in another country, just as repressive, but somewhere where the abuse of power is relatively speaking more under the radar for most people than China. Myanmar, for example, or Vietnam. This way they can achieve the research goals of learning how to operate in such an environment, while pretending to have stopped.

Or the US?

Sadly yes.

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

#369

Post by ehsankia »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #238
ehsankia wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but almost every peace of information about Dragonfly we have is from the intercept, which has for source people who clearly are very biased against the project. So while we can come up with dozens of rumors that shine it in a very bad light, I'm not sure how fair that is, since we're missing the other half of the story. With enough selective "facts", I can make almost anything look bad.

Bias dosen't mean incorrect, every single human and organization has bias, its a fools errand to demand some kind of mythical "bias free" position. Do you have specific issues with their reporting? Or do you just want to baselessly cast aspersions on what they are saying?

Neither, and I never said they were false (although they could be, there's no way to tell). I very clearly stated that it's still possible to paint a misleading picture of something only using facts. The key point here is that it's not the full picture, and some facts, without the proper context, sound very different.

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

#370

Post by V-eHGsd_ »

SquareWheel wrote: post #191
V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep, "don't be evil". and humorously/tellingly that phrase was removed from the code of conduct just this past may. https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...

So tired of people spreading this misinformation. You can look at the code of conduct and verify for yourself this is not true.

it's still there as the last sentence, but the document used to literally open with "Don't be evil".
Post reply on HN