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

We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 888 posts

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#831

Post by derangedHorse »

colordrops wrote: post #761
pompousprick wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since China is known for its countless human rights violations, Are these Google employees also going to... 1. Give up their Chinese-Manufactured iPhones/Android Phones? Tablets? Laptops and workstations?? 2. Give up watching movies/shows on their Chinese-manufactured TVs?? 3. Stop wearing Chinese-made iwatches/fitbits/etc.?? 4. Boycott silicon valley startups that have accepted chinese investments? 5. Boycott every…

There's a difference between boycotting products made in China and protesting against building technologies that enable dictatorial regimes. They do not deserve to be conflated.

They're not "enabling" a dictatorial regime, they're just following the laws of a foreign government. Making a censored search engine isn't "supporting" the government, it's just abiding by it.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#832

Post by derangedHorse »

sullyj3 wrote: post #800
pompousprick wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since China is known for its countless human rights violations, Are these Google employees also going to... 1. Give up their Chinese-Manufactured iPhones/Android Phones? Tablets? Laptops and workstations?? 2. Give up watching movies/shows on their Chinese-manufactured TVs?? 3. Stop wearing Chinese-made iwatches/fitbits/etc.?? 4. Boycott silicon valley startups that have accepted chinese investments? 5. Boycott every…

"You're not allowed to do anything good ever if you're not already a maximally good person. That would make you a hypocrite, which is way worse than someone who doesn't do anything to help in the first place."

I don't understand the context in which you're posting this quote. pompousprick's argument was that we shouldn't morally prosecute these companies as supporting dictatorships just because they do business in China.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#833

Post by starbeast »

tru3_power wrote: post #654
starbeast wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>search has transitioned from "show me what is on the internet, limited by the power of our algorithms" into something more like "show me what is on the internet, limited by the overton window[2] of our legal, PR, and advertiser-relations departments". I'd say it has gone full; "Show me what your advertisers and other sources of income, would like someone like me to find on the internet."

I’ve realized the same thing. Do you have any google search alternatives?

Using bookmarks to record useful list sites, same as I did before search engines.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#834

Post by ameister14 »

learc83 wrote: post #581
ameister14 wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, words under copyright and defamatory statements. Not a huge expansion, covered under 'pretty much' in my opinion. Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned.

>copyright and defamatory statements These are much bigger restrictions that impact far more people than the others you mentioned. >Fighting words is essentially a dead precedent, and all that remains is inciting imminent violence, which I mentioned. There's also huge limitations on commercial speech; obscenity (which covers more than child pornography); reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions; perjury; black…

Obscenity doesn't cover much more than child pornography. It used to, but not anymore. You should read Reno v ACLU.

The reasonable time, manner and place restrictions aren't enforced and also wouldn't be upheld, but you're right, perjury, blackmail and some kinds of harassment aren't covered. Solicitations to commit crimes actually aren't always illegal.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#835

Post by glenneroo »

mandevil wrote: post #369
giobox wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good for you, for real. It takes a lot sometimes to stand up against something that a lot of other people would jump for the chance to do. While it is a nice enough gesture, let's not kid ourselves that this was some difficult selfless act on the part of the OP. Apologies to the OP if I have misinterpreted their earlier post but: > I considered working at Google last year after a recruiter reached out to me This st…

You don't just have to live in the Bay Area to get those emails, at the very least anywhere in the US you will get them. Source: have never lived in the Bay Area. Have a large number of those emails in my gmail.

I live outside the US and have also received recruiter emails for Google offices throughout the EU.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#836

Post by Aunche »

bad_user wrote: post #784
Aunche wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Google pulled out of China, they has no market share. If Dragonfly isn't successful, they'll abandon that as well. There is a lot of social unrest in China. China does a good job at preventing it from escalating with supression, but that cost would certainly outweigh any benefits of China trying to mess with Google outside their jurisdiction. This isn't even considering how the US simply just wouldn't allow Goog…

So you're saying that people of a sovereign nation use local products and that is somehow dangerous. You're also saying that you're entitled to their money. I find this line of thinking to be very troubling, to be honest.

Well if you're worried about China's influence seeping into other countries, then yes.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#837

Post by dsr_ »

tomschlick wrote: post #690
dsr_ wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the outrage: if the police have armored vehicles, that means that they perceive a need for armored vehicles. When officers walk past them, they are reminded that they are needed. When officers are inside them, they feel simultaneously invulnerable and threatened -- all this armor means that someone must want to kill them. From the other side, a community that sees MRAPs going past has to believe that there's a…

So we are talking about perception above all else? Great, but there are use cases for armored vehicles. Whether its an MRAP or a Bearcat. There are always going to be barricaded persons, hostage situations, active shooters, riots, and natural disasters that need responding to and those seem to be the best tools for the job. The goal is to get as close to the subject as possible without anyone getting hurt. From there…

The idea that first you roll up in a tank, and then you pretend that you're going to de-escalate, is inherently ludicrous.

"Barricaded person": doesn't need an MRAP, they need a therapist.

"Hostage situation": generally also doesn't need an MRAP, they need a specialized therapist.

"Active shooter": here's note from a company that really wants to sell you training on how to deal with an active shooter -- http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-fro... -- note that even with their spin, they can't come up with any evidence that an MRAP would be helpful.

"Riots" -- There's a list on Wikipedia. What percentage were caused by the police murdering people? 12 of 29 in the last ten years.

"Natural disasters": don't require tanks. Heavy trucks? Rugged 4WD? More investment in firefighting equipment? Sure. Hauling around tons of armor on a vehicle with a high center of gravity? Silly.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#838

Post by NamTaf »

int_19h wrote: post #817
Buge wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Bing doesn't, while Dragonfly does?

I honestly have no idea. Last I heard, Bing is blocked in China, which I assume means that there are things that come in its search result that Chinese government doesn't like. But Dragonfly [ostensibly] went well beyond just censoring results, in that it implemented specific tools like linking search requests with phone numbers identifying people who made those requests. That's straight-up aiding and abetting oppres…

bing.com redirects to a Chinese version of Bing, which prioritises Chinese sites.

I have no basis for saying this beyond not knowing how they could do this otherwise, but I would assume that they must censor results to exist there. I don't know if they go further, such as you describe Dragonfly plans to do.

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#839

Post by atomical »

maemilius wrote: post #235
vasilipupkin wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

choice A is for google not to build a Chinese engine and for Chinese to use censored versions of locally built search engines. Choice B is for them to have a choice of local search engines and a google search engine ( all censored ). Seems to me from moral point of view, Chinese are better off under B and so I don't see why it's wrong for google to go with B

If there was some way to ensure that this never got bigger than China, I doubt there would be as much opposition. The problem arises when you ask the question "Who, next?" Who, next, wants all of Google's information about people in their country turned over to them? As much as we in the US talk about out government compelling companies to turn over data, those companies _do_ have a say in what they will or can turn…

> If there was some way to ensure that this never got bigger than China, I doubt there would be as much opposition.

Are you saying US companies should get one moral lapse for free?

> This _is_ better for the Chinese.

Neither you or the parent poster have indicated why it's better. You've described it as exactly the same as local search options. Is Google magical or what? Can the Chinese not make a search engine? Is it beyond them?

Re: We are Google employees – Google must drop Dragonfly

#840

Post by all2 »

DC-3 wrote: post #779
all2 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That grill is designed for ramming, shoving, and a hammer-head maneuver that destabilizes the target vehicle. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIT_maneuver [1] https://youtu.be/OjvBYk8_8HI?t=19

The UK police manage to PIT vehicles (and, in a recent turn of events, mopeds) without needing to fit metalwork to their police cars.

What does the body damage look like?
Post reply on HN