931–940 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice mental gymnastics. There's always a choice to not support the country by not participating in its economy and becoming a hermit. Ah, but that's inconvenient!
Uhuh. Are you Ted Kaczynski then out in the wilderness right now using the internet through a satellite dish?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you moderate something you can't define?
> I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. Hasn't stopped the government from moderating other things that can't be defined crisply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You couldn't move to Canada easily?
Compared to most other western countries, sure, Canada is on the easier side. However, even with that in mind, it is still a very difficult and complicated process, with tons of hard limitations that can put a complete stop to the whole thing due to something trivial, like not having a degree. And even with that barrier of hard requirements cleared, it is still a pretty draconian experience. Having gone through a sim…
Our process isn't that easy; we have an immigration system that the GOP would _like to have_.
There are points awarded based on your education and training, variated against the demand for those skills in Canada. If you are being imported by an employer they must go to considerable lengths to prove that they attempted to find an existing Canadian to fill that role. And so on.
And it can be all avoided by paying approximately $800,000 to what is effectively an escrow: you get it back after a few years, less inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bigger question is why google/youtube cares. Isn't youtube/google banned in china?
They still have lots of Chinese users, who probably don't enjoy having insults hurled at them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Well, sort of , but not really. It's more like. You are on Earth now. All the big govs work together at the highest levels. The whole nationalistic shtick is for us proles down here in the bleachers, working the boilers, eating scraps. You know, like entertainment? Something to get all excited about, like. And all govs control info. Democracies just pretend they don't (they do it covertly, through narrative con…
Your reply sounds crazy, like a conspiracy. I don't want to believe it, but I have to admit this helps to explain something, you gave me a fresh and interesting view to think about the narrative.
But no one can prove the official narratives either. We just need to think for ourselves. I'm glad I've given you something fresh.
I don't want to believe any of them. I wish the would was very different. But it seems it's not right now...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Well, sort of , but not really. It's more like. You are on Earth now. All the big govs work together at the highest levels. The whole nationalistic shtick is for us proles down here in the bleachers, working the boilers, eating scraps. You know, like entertainment? Something to get all excited about, like. And all govs control info. Democracies just pretend they don't (they do it covertly, through narrative con…
>And all govs control info. Democracies just pretend they don't (they do it covertly, through narrative control, disinfo, etc). Wishful thinking. "Narrative control and disinfo" are categorically different than banning expressions, opinions, theories and thought. The scale and types of information control are not on comparable levels. There are always contradictions inherent in governance. There are always both open…
But yeah about the rest, you're probably right. I can't prove any of what I say to you, and one reason is I don't think you'd take, "just trust me, I'm right", as proof.
I hope you don't believe me. It is sort of an awful thing to believe in.
What can I say? I guess I'm a bit of a nutter. Maybe more than a bit. Definitely more than a bit. Conspiracy theorist whackjob if you will.
I like your ellipsis "XJ secret master plan". Nice quote style. Very funny. Perfect for nutty comments :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except YouTube is blocked in China, so no one really should be trying to solve this to begin with...
people read/write chinese outside of China though...
All: please don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments. Unfortunately the two top subthreads have become so large that they fill out the first page entirely. You have to click 'More' at the bottom to see the rest (there are almost 1000 at this point).
I made this a collapsed stub comment to collect replies, since we don't want to distract the top of the thread too much.
All: please don't miss that there are multiple pages of comments. Unfortunately the two top subthreads have become so large that they fill out the first page entirely. You have to click 'More' at the bottom to see the rest (there are almost 1000 at this point).
* Page 2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219&p=2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be why the US Justice department is looking at an antitrust suit, Anti-trust is the remedy that came about in 1890 when the Standard Oil trust seemed unstoppable. That said, I see this sort of thing a bit differently. If Google is all powerful and a monopoly and never in danger of being killed, why comply with an authoritarian foreign nation to remove comments that are amplifying an anti-government sentime…
Google certainly doesn't need China, but it wants it. It's a heckuva lot easier to do business and make money in a country, when you're chummy with the people in charge. Even if it goes against your ideals, free speech, or public interest. Even if Google dies, its replacement will still be equally tempted to censor dissenting voices, in order to please the people in charge.
I have come to define the magnitude of need to represent how far out of your internal value system and the law are you willing to ago to satisfy a "need." I'm not sure what the units are, desperation perhaps.
For example, I "need" to eat to live but at the present time my need is modest because I have enough money to buy food to eat. At my current level I wouldn't steal food (go outside the law), or misrepresent my state of poverty to a food bank (go outside my internal values) in order to acquire food. So the magnitude of that need is "small."
However, if I was unemployed, out of savings, and behind on my bills, the calculus changes. I really need to eat, and in that situation might do things I would not normally do (like rummage around in trash cans for discarded food).
It is clear to me that Google, like every company, needs revenue in order to survive. The stronger the need for that revenue, the more willing they become to compromise the user experience, the law, and/or their internal values.
To me, their actions of the last few years appear to directly contradict what at one time were core internal values. Whether its the level of monetization of their own properties, or their willingness to cooperate with an authoritarian state to keep information away from their population. I see their taking of these steps as an outcome of their great need for revenue.
China is the second largest economy on the planet, and Google does not appear to be willing to hold true to their values and forego the revenue that economy could potentially produce for them. That is the reasoning by which I come to the conclusion that Google needs China.