Sin upon sin.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise May 18, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:Every time you use Google you're using Linux. I don't know how to express the feelings I have when I hear this. They speak of using Linux as though it was a good thing and I suppose they are free to use the code as all are. But I don't like the fact that they sold out over China. And I've said all this before and large parts of the choir are present. So, Mr DiBona, how dare you speak of using OpenSource when your company denies openness to a whole nation? I know it's a different sort of openness, but either you stand against such oppression or you join the ranks of the grubby "soldouts" and using what to us is completely free and open to forge tools of censorship is deeply odious. |
| jkouyoumjian May 18, 2007 4:04 PM EDT |
QUOTE: "I know it's a different sort of openness, but either you stand against such oppression or you join the ranks of the grubby "soldouts" and using what to us is completely free and open to forge tools of censorship is deeply odious." You have to follow the laws of the countries you operate in. Google could refuse to work in China, but if we apply that logic to everything else, we won't be able to use many useful products and services we have today. Most of our goods are made in China. Did you know that only five Chinese companies make 85% of the world's notebook computers? Does this mean that 85% of the world's notebooks are used by people who support Chinese government censorship? Let's put the blame where it belongs: on the Chinese government. They are in charge of their country. While I do feel your pain, I also feel it is not fair to demand that Google not "sell out" to China on cenorship, when the rest of us have already sold out to China in so many other ways. |
| dcparris May 18, 2007 4:59 PM EDT |
Hmmm... that's actually not a bad point. Sal? |
| dinotrac May 18, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
>Hmmm... that's actually not a bad point. Sal? I agree that it is unfair to point fingers so selectively. I dislike Google being an accomplice to the Chinese government's treachery, but... What about all of the products we buy that are the product of sweatshop or near-sweatshop conditions? What about products we buy from places that foul the atmosphere miserably? What about buying from a country whose government refuses to prosecute those who adulterate drug and food ingredients? Is it fair to hold Google to a standard that we aren't willing to meet? |
| jrm May 18, 2007 7:41 PM EDT |
This keeps coming up. I think today's secret word must have been "malice". |
| salparadise May 18, 2007 9:16 PM EDT |
Is it fair to hold Google to a standard that we aren't willing to meet? 1) How do you know I'm not willing to meet it? 2) Is the inability to deal with one sin a blanket excuse for not dealing with any? Quoting:You have to follow the laws of the countries you operate in.Just following orders eh? When Cain said to God "am I my brothers keeper?" you'll notice the reply was not "ok, fair enough I'll go look elsewhere". I know it's easy to stand and point. And I know it's easy to take what appears to be the moral high ground. My point is just that we enjoy a lot of freedom and it does not sit well to hear someone from google boasting about how good they are as gatekeepers of knowledge when they've already shown themselves to be unfit. Bit of a rant. Was expecting to get shot down rather quickly. I just think we need more idealism and a lot less shrugging whilst collecting the payoff. And the afore mentioned company, at one point, looked as though they might be the company that started such a movement. |
| dinotrac May 19, 2007 3:27 AM EDT |
> 1) How do you know I'm not willing to meet it? I don't. In the English language, the word "we" is a collective. For all I know, you never step inside a Wal-Mart, don't have Chinese brake-parts, Chinese computer, Chinese clothing, Chinese anything. 2) Is the inability to deal with one sin a blanket excuse for not dealing with any? Which has nothing to do with anything. The question was singling out Google. |
| jrm May 19, 2007 5:47 AM EDT |
Google was directly involved. They had to realize the repercussions of their act, but proceeded anyway. When I buy a laptop, I'm indirectly involved. I actually didn't realize until now that 85% of all laptops are made in China. (Lack of malice.) |
| Abe May 19, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:The question was singling out Google. I agree with Dino, singling out Google is not fair nor appropriate. Besides, Google is abiding by the Chinese law (The gov is the law in china). God knows how many stupid and unfair laws we have to abide with here in the US and many other countries. Google did the right thing. When the Chinese Gov. closed the door, Google went in through the window. |
| hkwint May 19, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:I actually didn't realize until now that 85% of all laptops are made in China That's a tricky one. In case you mean 'Republic of China' a.k.a. Taiwan, you're right. In case you mean 'People's Republic of China' a.k.a. China (in popular language) you're wrong. Both Quanta and Compal are from Taiwan. It wasn't the Taiwanese government which asked for censorship. In my opinion, you should be more careful with these issues, and not confuse the two, especially since human rights and critic about China has a lot to do with the Taiwanese issue. By saying laptops come from China, it seems you agree Taiwan is part of China. Better talk about socks instead of laptops. |
| jrm May 19, 2007 1:55 PM EDT |
In my opinion, you should read the whole thread and direct that comment to jkouyoumjian. |
| dinotrac May 19, 2007 2:22 PM EDT |
hk - Isn't Lenovo from the People's Republic? That would seem to make room for laptops amongst the socks. |
| salparadise May 19, 2007 10:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:I agree with Dino, singling out Google is not fair nor appropriate. OK - Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco have also played/are still playing the whore in China. On the other hand, the article wasn't about those companies, it was about someone from Google saying "hey, we're so cool cus we use Linux" and I don't agree. And Google are the ones who chose to say "Do no evil is our motto". I think, all things considered, that I am quite entitled to "single out Google" seeing as how it's in context n'all. Abiding by Chinese law is a bullsh*t excuse. Until 1965 it was legal in certain parts of Australia (afaik) for white people to shoot Aborigines - does that make it OK? In America until not too recently it was legal to discriminate against non white people (whatever that means - I've never met a "white" person in my life) - should that law have been left in place and what's more - profited from? In many places in the world it's "legal" to use children in employment situations - should we make hay out of this too? Oh, that's right, we already do - own an iPod? Bought any clothes recently? And for us in the so called "enlightened West" to think so little of censorship of basic political freedoms goes to show how decadent, hardhearted and gross we have become. We do not deserve the freedoms we have. |
| hkwint May 20, 2007 4:29 AM EDT |
Quoting:And Google are the ones who chose to say "Do no evil is our motto". And filling their pockets in whichever way is the most lucrative is what they do. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2007 4:52 AM EDT |
>And filling their pockets in whichever way is the most lucrative is what they do. Comments like that occasionally make me despair for the future of free software. Google is a for-profit company. They are in business to make money. They are, in fact, a public corporation. They owe a duty to their shareholders. However, unlike some other companies, they also manage to do a fair bit of good for free software. They are good and ethical corporate citizens. That is not the same as being missionaries or social workers. It means finding a way to make money without unduly screwing people and, when possible, doing some good along the way. |
| jrm May 20, 2007 8:07 AM EDT |
I don't think anyone is saying Google shouldn't make money, but they said one thing and did the opposite. On Google's corporate philosophy page, Item #4 is "Democracy on the web works." Item #6 is "You can make money without doing evil." Yet Google's shareholders rejected a proposal to set policies protecting freedom of access to the internet and prohibiting self-censorship. This is a big deal to me, because it's starting to happen here. We've already seen efforts by telephone and cable companies to tax content providers. This discriminates in favor of their "preferred" services. (And I believe AOL censored emails that mentioned a group protesting AOL's plan to charge for email.) I'm all for capitalism, I just don't want a few large corporations to be the gatekeepers. If Google (or anyone else) is willing to do this to the Chinese people, what makes you think they wouldn't be willing to do it to us? |
| dcparris May 20, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
After all, they would only be abiding by the law. |
| hkwint May 20, 2007 9:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:Google is a for-profit company.Exactly, Dino. You agree with me (though you may have felt different). Motto isn't worth cr@p, and it actually surprises me people attach any meaning to their motto. Google cookies expiring in 2038 (without any benefit to the Google-users, and Google even lies about that) show their true intention. Don't believe that motto, that motto would only apply to Greenpeace. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
>Don't believe that motto, that motto would only apply to Greenpeace. And I will believe Greenpeace when alien pigs land in space ships that look like hula hoops to tells us that sausage is the key to world peace. IOW - Saints are few and far between. There is a time to appreciate the good that people do and try to prod for more. The glass will always be half empty. Some folks, however, don't even try to fill it half full. At least have some small appreciation for those who do. |
| Abe May 20, 2007 11:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:salparadise I understand your point; But ,are you expecting Google to be responsible for correcting all of that? They are a company in business to make money with some ethics, not a philanthropist like Gates who claims to fight poverty, hunger and disease. |
| jdixon May 20, 2007 12:38 PM EDT |
Wow. More points than a tennis match. I think I'll limit myself to one comment. > We do not deserve the freedoms we have. Don't worry Sal, it's only a matter of time. |
| hkwint May 20, 2007 1:17 PM EDT |
Hehe, Greenpeace was a bad example, I knew when I was typinng that, but I'm afraid you don't know the WNF though you've been in my country. I was too lazy to find out WNF equals 'World Wildlife Fund'. So read 'World Wildlife Fund' instead. BTW I've also been confronted by Greenpeace 'FUD', but let's not forget, _some_ of the times they still do a good job. |
| salparadise May 20, 2007 2:08 PM EDT |
I expect nothing. What I would like to see/hear is Google say "we made a mistake in China, we regret working with the chinese gov' to stifle opposition and censor information. We told the chinese gov we aren't going to play ball anymore and they said "get out of China" so we're getting out of china". That would be a start. Thus shamed, certain other companies follow suit. A cascade effect begins - the world gets better. Why, in the name of all that's true, a) does this have to be a dream and b) has this become something worthy of scoffing and derision? As to half full or half empty glasses. This challenges me. What do I believe? In the inevitable downward spiral of society until anarchy and brutal violence rule or in the possibility of a better tomorrow? What I do believe is this. It's not set in stone. It is up to us. We can have either. |
| jdixon May 20, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
> We told the chinese gov we aren't going to play ball anymore and they said "get out of China" so we're getting out of china". Sal, I understand how you feel about the matter, and I largely agree. I don't think I would have made such a deal in the first place. If you deal with the devil, you're going to get burned is still a sound principle. Nonetheless, is what you suggest actually the best option? The Chinese government is no more capable of full censorship than any other. Knowing this, is a partially filtered search result under Google's control more useful to the Chinese people than one fully under Chinese control? Especially if any filtered results are prominently noted as such, which I understand was what they planned to do. I think an argument can actually be made that cooperating with the Chinese government still gives the Chinese people a better option than they had before. I'm not convinced it's a winning argument, but I think it's one which deserves consideration rather than casual dismissal. I don't consider myself in a position to make an informed decision on the matter, so I've tended to cut Google some slack on the matter. |
| jdixon May 20, 2007 2:43 PM EDT |
> In the inevitable downward spiral of society until anarchy and brutal violence rule or in the possibility of a better tomorrow? Oh, that one's easy. Both. Societies age and wither, the same as individuals. New ones are reborn and take their place. It's a progression as old as humanity itself. Any individual society will fade and fall from power, usually with unfortunate effects on its citizens. Hopefully the new ones emerging will have learned something from their mistakes and make the future a better place. That's largely been the pattern so far, in any case. |
| dinotrac May 20, 2007 3:02 PM EDT |
>BTW I've also been confronted by Greenpeace 'FUD', but let's not forget, _some_ of the times they still do a good job. Sounds like you agree with me!!! Truth is, if you insist on "all or nothing", you'll get nothing more often than you get all. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!