91–100 of 148 posts
Or "non-oppressive" governments like the UK.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a few things: 1) This tool is made by an Alphabet owned company (Jigsaw), not Google, another Alphabet owned company. The companies will have different missions, even if profits flow the same direction. 2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. 3) China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service wo…
related to #1 -- I predict if some division of Alphabet threatens the income of another larger division (esp. Google), the smaller one will be shut down. This is the reason for much of Sony's failure/inability to build a usable mp3 player. They built amazing music playback devices, but the record label division was so terrified of 'piracy' they forced the hardware division to require a proprietary encryption format (…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a few things: 1) This tool is made by an Alphabet owned company (Jigsaw), not Google, another Alphabet owned company. The companies will have different missions, even if profits flow the same direction. 2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. 3) China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service wo…
> Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum. Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."
They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would you like Google to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum. Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."
This isn't like theft. It's more like the law says you can't read certain things, so a printing company adjusts the books they print for the people of that country. Obviously they don't want to censor things, but they also want to profit. They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a few things: 1) This tool is made by an Alphabet owned company (Jigsaw), not Google, another Alphabet owned company. The companies will have different missions, even if profits flow the same direction. 2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. 3) China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service wo…
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Alphabet and Google can't claim to be against censorship while they're profiting from it. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Clearly the only thing Google and Alphabet are "for" is making more money, so there's really no point pretending they have a moral compass guiding them.
It’s like a prayer to serenity: Grant me the courage to change what I cannot accept, the serenity to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.
Google maybe rich beyond the dreams of any single human, but they can’t force the Chinese government to stop thinking like the Chinese government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a difference to how the NSA does same albeit with a time delay instead of being instantaneous?
> time delay Is there one? PRISM and the early Snowden leaks indicated the searches were immediate. Was that not true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't like theft. It's more like the law says you can't read certain things, so a printing company adjusts the books they print for the people of that country. Obviously they don't want to censor things, but they also want to profit. They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would…
The parent was arguing that it was less wrong because Google was motivated to do it by self-interest. That's simply not a mitigating factor in any case.
Can we get a rename of this story? "Alphabet's Jigsaw" would be more appropriate. Jigsaw is, at best, a sibling of Google, not a part of Google. It is explained in the very first sentence, but comments so far don't seem to acknowledge that.
This is an interesting communications dilemma. I don't think most people have really understood the Google/Alphabet transition. When most people think of "Google" they're actually thinking of Alphabet. If you say "Google" then you're conveying the correct information using the wrong term. If you say "Alphabet" then you're using the right term but a lot of people won't know what you're talking about. What to do? This…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum. Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."
This isn't like theft. It's more like the law says you can't read certain things, so a printing company adjusts the books they print for the people of that country. Obviously they don't want to censor things, but they also want to profit. They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would…
I'm not seeing the moral difference between this and the grandparent post. "We don't want to be evil, but they offered us a lot of money, so what could we do?"