As a former Google employee myself, I have a really hard time connecting these actions with the company I used to be very proud of working for.
I understand that reaching the Chinese consumer is a huge opportunity, but drawing the line at refusing to assist in the censorship of 1.4 billion people seemed like an easy line to draw and stick to. If Google won't stand against this, won't the rest tumble? I fear a domino affect that won't be possible to undo.
For the first time in a long time, I am genuinely disappointing at Google and am questioning thoughts I've had in the past of going back to work for them again.
Google is already censoring content in the US and EU, not even the same results in all countries, and we asked for it, so what's so much different about following Chinese law?
A massive difference in the amount of censorship, for one.
Arguably (very arguably), US and EU censorship is somewhat justified by the attempt to protect individuals, but Chinese censorship is pretty blatantly about protecting existing power structures (in the name of "stability").
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
China is an authoritarian one-party state with a history of violating the human rights of its citizens. The EU, for all its bureaucratic flaws, is a democratic institution with a history of respect for rights and the rule of law.
So yes, absolutely, there are strong moral reasons to treat EU laws differently than Chinese laws.
Placing China and the EU in the same category in regards to human rights, press freedom, and individual freedom is disqualifying yourself from any discussion about the topic.
Reality check: nobody use a mobile app for searching purpose. So either the whistleblower is misleaded, or it's a slightly different app than just search.
Pity so many corporations in our industry harvested good will of their users, expecting to never help their oppressors, and a decade later here we are :(
What is wrong with this? It is as if Google spider bot sits within China.
What is the use of showing the result, if the users can't access the content? It makes sense to filter the result than showing an 'unauthorised' error on clicking the link.
First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual.
I think it's pretty clear at this point Google is willing to sell their own mothers (and your data) just to keep those profitable quarters up for many more years.
As more advertisers start preferring Facebook, I think Google will become even more desperate in regards to what it will be willing to do to increase revenue and profits quarter after quarter. Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.
I guess it's what you get when you get judged by revenue growth, not just revenue, or even by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric.
> Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.
I worry a lot about the long term. What is going to be done with FB and Google's data once their founders are gone and Wall St has complete control? As far as I know, from their point of view there is no line that cannot be crossed for shareholder value. I believe in many cases the founders of these companies have actually been more morale than your generic fund manager. What's going to happen when the founders are gone?
Dont be evil was pretty much meaningless to begin with. Its not like there was a clear definition, and not being evil is a far cry from being actively a force for Good.
"Don't be evil" was cute marketing, never a serious statement. It was removed precisely because people kept using it to argue against anything the company did.
Advertisers are also not leaving Google at all, and Facebook is not a replacement.
>First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual.
I'm sorry, but providing services to the US military (as an American company) does not qualify as 'evil'. I hear the same insane calls for not providing services to ICE, a federal, civilian agency enforcing American democratically-derived laws.
With respect to Google's dealings with China (and similarly Facebook's dealings with Russia), you can't expect technology companies to fight or even ignore major world military, economic and geopolitical powers.
It's not fair for Google to take the 'high-road' with China when nobody else does. I'm certain OP has no qualms in buying and using Chinese-made goods but still complains about Google being evil because they can't afford to ignore 1.4 billion people.
It is not fair for Facebook to fight Russian attempts at election engineering. It's not fair when the public demands that Facebook take all responsibility for being targeted by a major global power with unlimited resources to launch cyber attacks (looking at you Swisher).
Both cases are failures of US, and European governments. US and EU should exert diplomatic and economic pressure on China and Russia to liberalize their governments, and economies (the shit the China gets away with in the kinds of hoops it requires foreign companies to jump through is insane). In the case of Russia, it is the US and EU that should take every step necessary to force that government to stop targeting western technologies companies for purpose of manipulating the voting public.
This is particularly directed at the EU and Germany as they are very fond of publicly stating that with Trump being Trump that EU/Germany should take on a leadership position in world and they have the most to lose. Thus far, EU has done very little to curb Russian aggression (Germany particularly has been quiet) EVEN in light of the fact that Russia funded and took active role in the misinformation campaign that led to Brexit, and multitudes of EU and European nations have been either targeted with military force (Ukraine) or dirty money for corrupting politicians. Apparently none of this is enough for EU and Germany to pay more than lip service to Russian aggression.
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
Let’s face it, the core issue here isn’t free speech and censorship, it’s speech you like or censorship you like vs those you don’t.
> censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
It's not hypocrisy per se. We all agree that there are some limits to free speech (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" springs to mind but feel free to substitute your own impossible-to-disagree-with example).
Hypocrisy would imply there's an absolute principle at stake ("absolute free speech" vs "reasonable level of censorship") but nobody truly believes the former so we are all simply disagreeing about "reasonable" in the latter.
[+] [-] bdammeir|7 years ago|reply
I understand that reaching the Chinese consumer is a huge opportunity, but drawing the line at refusing to assist in the censorship of 1.4 billion people seemed like an easy line to draw and stick to. If Google won't stand against this, won't the rest tumble? I fear a domino affect that won't be possible to undo.
For the first time in a long time, I am genuinely disappointing at Google and am questioning thoughts I've had in the past of going back to work for them again.
[+] [-] jarfil|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twodave|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpartel|7 years ago|reply
Arguably (very arguably), US and EU censorship is somewhat justified by the attempt to protect individuals, but Chinese censorship is pretty blatantly about protecting existing power structures (in the name of "stability").
[+] [-] cromwellian|7 years ago|reply
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
[+] [-] ForHackernews|7 years ago|reply
So yes, absolutely, there are strong moral reasons to treat EU laws differently than Chinese laws.
[+] [-] ragebol|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] foepys|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bodas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spicyusername|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jand|7 years ago|reply
... to persons who value moral higher than shareholder value. Advertisers will mostly be happy to enter previously untapped markets.
It is cold, but why should Google care? The times when an publicity stunt like "dont't be evil" was required to establish a big user base are over.
If it would in any way raise the revenue of google, i assume google would instantly proclaim another "don't be a dick" COC.
[+] [-] aldoushuxley001|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmlnr|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rathish_g|7 years ago|reply
What is the use of showing the result, if the users can't access the content? It makes sense to filter the result than showing an 'unauthorised' error on clicking the link.
[+] [-] mtgx|7 years ago|reply
I think it's pretty clear at this point Google is willing to sell their own mothers (and your data) just to keep those profitable quarters up for many more years.
As more advertisers start preferring Facebook, I think Google will become even more desperate in regards to what it will be willing to do to increase revenue and profits quarter after quarter. Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.
[+] [-] teekert|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] consumer451|7 years ago|reply
I worry a lot about the long term. What is going to be done with FB and Google's data once their founders are gone and Wall St has complete control? As far as I know, from their point of view there is no line that cannot be crossed for shareholder value. I believe in many cases the founders of these companies have actually been more morale than your generic fund manager. What's going to happen when the founders are gone?
[+] [-] ekianjo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manigandham|7 years ago|reply
Advertisers are also not leaving Google at all, and Facebook is not a replacement.
[+] [-] jarfil|7 years ago|reply
Isn't it actually illegal for publicly traded companies to do otherwise?
[+] [-] macspoofing|7 years ago|reply
I'm sorry, but providing services to the US military (as an American company) does not qualify as 'evil'. I hear the same insane calls for not providing services to ICE, a federal, civilian agency enforcing American democratically-derived laws.
With respect to Google's dealings with China (and similarly Facebook's dealings with Russia), you can't expect technology companies to fight or even ignore major world military, economic and geopolitical powers.
It's not fair for Google to take the 'high-road' with China when nobody else does. I'm certain OP has no qualms in buying and using Chinese-made goods but still complains about Google being evil because they can't afford to ignore 1.4 billion people.
It is not fair for Facebook to fight Russian attempts at election engineering. It's not fair when the public demands that Facebook take all responsibility for being targeted by a major global power with unlimited resources to launch cyber attacks (looking at you Swisher).
Both cases are failures of US, and European governments. US and EU should exert diplomatic and economic pressure on China and Russia to liberalize their governments, and economies (the shit the China gets away with in the kinds of hoops it requires foreign companies to jump through is insane). In the case of Russia, it is the US and EU that should take every step necessary to force that government to stop targeting western technologies companies for purpose of manipulating the voting public.
This is particularly directed at the EU and Germany as they are very fond of publicly stating that with Trump being Trump that EU/Germany should take on a leadership position in world and they have the most to lose. Thus far, EU has done very little to curb Russian aggression (Germany particularly has been quiet) EVEN in light of the fact that Russia funded and took active role in the misinformation campaign that led to Brexit, and multitudes of EU and European nations have been either targeted with military force (Ukraine) or dirty money for corrupting politicians. Apparently none of this is enough for EU and Germany to pay more than lip service to Russian aggression.
[+] [-] sus_007|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cortexio|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cromwellian|7 years ago|reply
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
Let’s face it, the core issue here isn’t free speech and censorship, it’s speech you like or censorship you like vs those you don’t.
[+] [-] andybak|7 years ago|reply
It's not hypocrisy per se. We all agree that there are some limits to free speech (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" springs to mind but feel free to substitute your own impossible-to-disagree-with example).
Hypocrisy would imply there's an absolute principle at stake ("absolute free speech" vs "reasonable level of censorship") but nobody truly believes the former so we are all simply disagreeing about "reasonable" in the latter.
[+] [-] JohnTHaller|7 years ago|reply