2/15 Do no evil. (unless it makes you big bucks). Google censors
Chinese ASAT image. BTW, I couldn't find this image on the
American google which is pretty scary if it truly isn't there
and not just my lack of search fu.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/07/front2454147.052777778.html
\_ The hypocrisy of Google, combined with the fact that Google
searches seem to be increasingly wasting my time leads me to ask
the question: what are you guys using instead? http://ask.com looks
decent, but that's only after a few minor searches.
\_ google search is great for me. if one of those link farm
sites keeps bugging me, i can add it to the Filter list
in the CustomizeGoogle firefox extension.
\_ That isn't google, that's some one else fixing google for you.
\_ I am sorry, but I am confused what you mean by "hypocrisy."
Do you mean that obeying the laws of the countries that they
do business with is hypocritical? No where in Google's mission
statement do I see "be anarchists" or "go to jail," is there
something I am missing?
\_ Hmmm, blind obedience to laws, eh?
\_ All I'm saying is: I don't agree with their business
model, so I'll use something else. That is my economic
right as an American.
\_ The article is crap, your description is misleading, and your
false pretensions are beneath you. It has a bunch of dated and
vague quotes about Google's censorship policy in China, and it
does not actually cite any sources about this specific image.
For the record, I have mixed feelings about Google and China.
On the one hand, I find its decision to self-censor distasteful
On the one hand, I find its decision to self-censor gay
and question its motivation, but, on the other, I am coming
around to the opinion that any significant increase in the flow
of information in China moves things forward and even a heavily
censored Google accomplishes that. -dans
\_ Yeah, 9 days dated:
http://www.publicradio.org/columns/futuretense/2006/02/06.shtml
\_ Um, no. Quoting from the article:
"Last year, Google's senior policy counsel, Andrew
McLaughlin, defended the censorship saying the company
sought to balance commitments ''to satisfy the
interests of users, expand access to information, and
respond to local conditions."
If Google sends out the same written statement to all news
agencies that inquire about its stance on China and
censorship, it doesn't magically become "new" because one of
the agencies chooses to republish it. Even if this is a new
statement from Google, which I highly doubt, my point that
the article contains no specifics about the image in question
stands. Can you read? Do you have thumbs? Show me your
thumbs!!! -dans
thumbs!!! Touch me! -dans
\_ First of all: breathe. Second of all: it doesn't
magically become "new" policy. But it's clear that it's
still their *current* policy. I didn't post the first
link, I'm just interested in Google's policies and how
they line up with trying to create a world I want to
live in. And I *do* agree with you that providing even
limited and censored information to China may be better
for them and us in the long term. But, I'm still a
little skeptical.
\_ I share your skepticism, and I think it's important to
keep pressure on companies to change their behavior
when they are misbehaving. That said, "Google's policy
on censorship in China unchanged since last year,
skeptics question Google's evilness." is not news.
"Google censors image (or document) foo because x, y,
and z" is news. I take issue with the article because
it represents itself as the latter, but reads like the
former. You can argue that greed is behind Google's
behavior with respect to China, and this is evidence
that the company is acting in an evil fashion.
Nonetheless, the question of Google's alignment is
still open. There is no question that sloppy,
sensationalist, overly subjective, in a nutshell,
yellow journalism is evil. -dans
\_ You're both/all missing the point. I posted the
original link, btw. My point wasn't really that
google is hypocritical (we know they are), it is
that I couldn't find the image on the *American*
http://google.com. If it isn't there because google
censored it, then the Chinese are censoring info
outside their country and in *my* country. I find
that very scary. Hypothetical: how long until they
tell google to pull tienamen square tank squish
pictures off the American http://google.com site?
\_ No, you're missing the point. You're reasoning
in the wrong direction. You believe Google is
hypocritical, greedy, and evil, and you're
presenting evidence to support this conclusion.
The lesser issue is that your evidence is weak
and circumstantial. The bigger issue is that
you're picking and choosing from the complete set
of facts. You present only the facts that
support your conclusion, and omit the
considerable evidence to the contrary. Lies of
omission are still lies. Now, I could conclude
that you're biased and have a chip on your
shoulder about Google, but to do so would be to
repeat your error. Maybe you're just lazy.
Maybe there's another explanation I haven't
thought of. Just because you can't find the
image in Google doesn't mean it's not there.
Even if it's absent from Google, that doesn't
mean China censored it. For example, Google has
a fairly straightforward and public process for
requesting i tems be removed from its index:
http://www.csua.org/u/foj
-dans
\_ Google is a corporation: by default their
actions are evil and they are guilty until
proven innocent. Find me the image on the
American google. It should be there by now
somewhere in some form since that particular
image has been linked and cross linked a
bunch of places.
\_ Okay, this is just so blatantly idiotic it
has to be a troll. Please, if you're going
to troll, at least have some fucking
artifice. -dans
\_ "I have a different world view so you
must be an idiot and a troll". Ok.
Thanks for participating. You could
have just ignored it if it was such
a blatantly idiotic troll. HYBT?
\_ All corporate acts are evil unless
proven otherwise is not a worldview,
it's a soundbite. I think you're an
idiot and a troll because you can't
distinguish between the two, not
because your views differ from my
own. Perhaps, in your head, your
views are more subtle and nuanced,
but you express them poorly, and
this lends credence to my assertion
that you're an idiot or a troll
without artifice. Besides,
responding to trolls is fun,
especially ones as easily baited as
yourself! -dans
\_ I think it's funny that you can
simultaneously claim to have been
trolled, getting irate and
insulting about it and then decide
at the end that you're really the
one doing the baiting. The
reality is no one is baiting
anyone. We simply have different
world views, you refuse to accept
that anyone with a different view
could have a valid view and it
upsets you (apparently).
\_ Apparently. -dans |
http://csua.com/feed/