Oops. My first pass I thought you did have something insightful to say.
I read your post to say: "google's actions in this case should be putting 'this link is not accessible to the people of the PRC' in big red letters."
What you said is, however, not required (China already tried to block Google and failed under public pressure, and that is not, therefore, Google's problem) and not even an issue (the issue is the censored links that show up on Google's results pages.)
One could argue that the scope of the "goodness" of getting their product banned in another country over website results that the people there aren't going to be allowed to see anyway is pretty damn limited.
Was that threat even raised? Based on the article your issue is a Red Herring: China tried to ban it but relented under public pressure.
hat being said, is it really *immoral* to remove links to websites that they aren't going to be able to see anyway? There's a difference between not being good, and being evil.
It is certainly immoral make it a part of your business model to cooperate to hide a governments censorship from its public.
That's probably why Google did what it did: because google is gaming the system rather than adhering to the "do no evil" mantra. They are choosing the evil greater of two evils (while ignoring the other choices they have which have less immediate economic gain). But this is the conclusion of the argument (Is google not "doing no evil" by censoring search results to the PRC subjects) that you are arguing to justify your conclusion. Merely by being available (whether censored or not) is of benefit to the people of the "People's" Republic of China is an interesting question but is rather firmly trumped by Googles decision to censor.
providing cache access to documents blocked by the government's filteres
Nobody is suggesting that, therefore again you are arguing from false presuppositions. The cache is already blocked, however now Google is removing any trace of the censorship from their pages to cooperate with the PRC in the censorship of the 'Net. So they are cooperating with the PRC to remove any trace of censorship. Google is clearly not even in neutral territory: they are actively censoring their own pages to make the PRC's censorship invisible.
By going in soft, Google can build public mindshare by providing a powerful search tool that will help the public see into the gray areas of PRC's censorship, and begin exploiting them.
That doesn't even make sense as an argument. Maybe you could try again?
Google's approach, they will have the opportunity to attack the problem of censorship from within, rather than from outside.
I thought that argument was discredited long ago? You will not stop bombs dropping in vietnam by getting a job making the fuses.
IMHO, them publicly admitting censoring results already meets their claim to honesty.
IMHO, your O is very selective about the facts it chooses to represent the situation when it makes a determination about Googles honesty.
The pp was making a point about the conflict apparent in juxtaposition of the mantra "do no evil" and their agreement with china to erase the blocked/censored sites from their results pages.
If your idea of being dishonest is having any form of censorship at all, then I'm afraid Google was dishonest from day 1.
If you are referring to Googles agreement to censor the sites they link to you are nuts. The mainland chinese users of google simply got dead links, and couldn't connect to Googles cache. They were blocked but not by Google. Google's sin came when they agreed to make their version of the world look like the PRC's.
Blocking child porn is censorship, I guess I could be argued, but Google does that to comply with the law (I think).
Responding to DMCA takedown notices is mere compliance, as well, even though the law is absurd.
Ah so you have a thing against "highmindedness"? Do you lack principles, or are they all just oriented around money?
You would keep the Chinese people from having the faintest approach to the WWW because their government would forbid some portion of it?
So, you do have at least one principle! I think: maybe you are just appealing to my principles to satisfied your own occult goals?
If you understood the problem you'd see Google is removing dead links from their pages that are dead precisely because they have been censored by the PRC.
Now, they haven't the faintest notion they're being censored, because Google wants to play nice with the PRC and hide their censorship.
That way, no mainland chinese will be able to demonstrate chinese censorship using Google.
Funny how it's IT fault for not getting people to follow the rules (whatever happened to self-discipline?).
Self-Discipline can be overwhelmed by rules. If you tack on all the Computer Rules to all the other rules (on Harassment, on Job-Requirements, etc) you rely on someone to remember a long list of do's and don'ts.
But a healthy admin policy will restrict the user without requiring her to remember what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, and why, and all that.
Who gives diddly what you think about your screensaver. That doesn't help you do your work.
Your analysis is not only faulty, it is unsubstantiated opinion. There have been numerous examples in the trade, on the Internet, and brought forth in recent civil suits that say with one voice: "You are wrong. There are many uses for p2p. It's very success speaks to that."
not justify the rampant sharing of unathorised copies of private works.
The legitimate uses don't have to "justify" those activities. The legitimate uses stand on their own, justify themselves, and justify the use of p2p tools. Your "rampant sharing of unauthorised copies" is justified by outdated distribution models, unreasonable pricing structures, legal attacks against new technologies, and cartels hostile to their customer base.
The *AA is wrong to blame the networks, they should be focused on security problems in the OS they've spread all over their lans, and on the insecure mailreaders installed on those.
They want to maintain the illusion of freedom as much as possible. That's why they don't want Google listing these banned pages to begin with; it makes the censorship more obvious.
Thanks for clarifying. Can you point me to where you determined this?
The question then becomes, "if Google created these 'known unknowns,' how long would it be before Google itself gets blocked?"
Why does that have to be the question? Why can't it be "Is it necessary to put aside our principles of Freedom of Information to get access to the Chinese Market?"
A person would have the moral censure of his community to risk if he were to do this. But a corporation evades it because it has a mandate against moral choices.
Because a corporation will not make the same choices as a person, and because a corporation isn't subject to moral censure in the same way an individual is, the community should have special controls over what the corporation is allowed. This should include restricting its activities in anti-democratic political domains.
This reveals Google's "be good" mantra as nothing more than marketing nonsense.
Hopefully govt. IT ppl will be careful not to be "tainted" by this source if they are also working to improve OpenOffice.org or other Open Source or Free Software!
I'm very interested in such a magazine, but disappointed that they almost inevitably are or become those "gadget" magazines spoken of in the description.
I think the advertisers in such a magazine often end up fighting the reader base and pulling the focus of "cheap and homemade".
Maybe there's a better chance this one will stay focused if O'Reilly is the publisher?
If my mod points hadn't been taken early(!) I'd have something for you, now I can just nod in agreement.
These multi-nationals are the real beneficieries of the US Legislature, as becomes obvious every time a choice of either/or is made in the House/Senate: us individuals get sold up the river. Along with the economy and our economic powerbase. The duchies are forming their alignments, and it's time to get out or be a peasant...
It's not like we have much choice: a vote for Bush is a vote for the military/industrial complex, and vote for Kerry is a vote for the information dragons.
The last several post were the reason the companies lobbied for the rule change.
Extra legislation is bloating our government. There is no need for the extra government you and "companies" asked for when all they need to do is comply with existing law and stop lying to their employees about their employment status.
Eventually I put in 16-18 hours days and began wrecking my health and I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly.
If you have a record of your hours, I'd recommend a second look at the laws, as sometimes a company will tell you you are "exempt" when you aren't necessarily.
If you are in a position where you are given general goals but don't set your agenda yourself and aren't responsible for it, you can make a case for yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. My first pass I thought you did have something insightful to say.
I read your post to say: "google's actions in this case should be putting 'this link is not accessible to the people of the PRC' in big red letters."
What you said is, however, not required (China already tried to block Google and failed under public pressure, and that is not, therefore, Google's problem) and not even an issue (the issue is the censored links that show up on Google's results pages.)
Try again.
Sorry, I was referring to your claim Google is removing the censored links from their results pages.
And double sorry, because going back to the article and reading more carefully showed me whence your claim arose.
Thank you for your informative post.
First we have to convince the moderators you have something insightful to say. :)
This is the "do no evil" recourse available to Google.
One could argue that the scope of the "goodness" of getting their product banned in another country over website results that the people there aren't going to be allowed to see anyway is pretty damn limited.
Was that threat even raised? Based on the article your issue is a Red Herring: China tried to ban it but relented under public pressure.
hat being said, is it really *immoral* to remove links to websites that they aren't going to be able to see anyway? There's a difference between not being good, and being evil.
It is certainly immoral make it a part of your business model to cooperate to hide a governments censorship from its public.
That's the game Google is playing.
That's probably why Google did what it did: because google is gaming the system rather than adhering to the "do no evil" mantra. They are choosing the evil greater of two evils (while ignoring the other choices they have which have less immediate economic gain). But this is the conclusion of the argument (Is google not "doing no evil" by censoring search results to the PRC subjects) that you are arguing to justify your conclusion. Merely by being available (whether censored or not) is of benefit to the people of the "People's" Republic of China is an interesting question but is rather firmly trumped by Googles decision to censor.
providing cache access to documents blocked by the government's filteres
Nobody is suggesting that, therefore again you are arguing from false presuppositions. The cache is already blocked, however now Google is removing any trace of the censorship from their pages to cooperate with the PRC in the censorship of the 'Net. So they are cooperating with the PRC to remove any trace of censorship. Google is clearly not even in neutral territory: they are actively censoring their own pages to make the PRC's censorship invisible.
By going in soft, Google can build public mindshare by providing a powerful search tool that will help the public see into the gray areas of PRC's censorship, and begin exploiting them.
That doesn't even make sense as an argument. Maybe you could try again?
Google's approach, they will have the opportunity to attack the problem of censorship from within, rather than from outside.
I thought that argument was discredited long ago? You will not stop bombs dropping in vietnam by getting a job making the fuses.
IMHO, them publicly admitting censoring results already meets their claim to honesty.
IMHO, your O is very selective about the facts it chooses to represent the situation when it makes a determination about Googles honesty.
The pp was making a point about the conflict apparent in juxtaposition of the mantra "do no evil" and their agreement with china to erase the blocked/censored sites from their results pages.
If your idea of being dishonest is having any form of censorship at all, then I'm afraid Google was dishonest from day 1.
If you are referring to Googles agreement to censor the sites they link to you are nuts. The mainland chinese users of google simply got dead links, and couldn't connect to Googles cache. They were blocked but not by Google. Google's sin came when they agreed to make their version of the world look like the PRC's.
Blocking child porn is censorship, I guess I could be argued, but Google does that to comply with the law (I think).
Responding to DMCA takedown notices is mere compliance, as well, even though the law is absurd.
You are one of the ultra-highminded ones.
Ah so you have a thing against "highmindedness"? Do you lack principles, or are they all just oriented around money?
You would keep the Chinese people from having the faintest approach to the WWW because their government would forbid some portion of it?
So, you do have at least one principle! I think: maybe you are just appealing to my principles to satisfied your own occult goals?
If you understood the problem you'd see Google is removing dead links from their pages that are dead precisely because they have been censored by the PRC.
Now, they haven't the faintest notion they're being censored, because Google wants to play nice with the PRC and hide their censorship.
That way, no mainland chinese will be able to demonstrate chinese censorship using Google.
How very benevolent of you, big brother.
Funny how it's IT fault for not getting people to follow the rules (whatever happened to self-discipline?).
Self-Discipline can be overwhelmed by rules. If you tack on all the Computer Rules to all the other rules (on Harassment, on Job-Requirements, etc) you rely on someone to remember a long list of do's and don'ts.
But a healthy admin policy will restrict the user without requiring her to remember what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, and why, and all that.
Who gives diddly what you think about your screensaver. That doesn't help you do your work.
Any "legitimate" use (which is dubious, at best)
Your analysis is not only faulty, it is unsubstantiated opinion. There have been numerous examples in the trade, on the Internet, and brought forth in recent civil suits that say with one voice: "You are wrong. There are many uses for p2p. It's very success speaks to that."
not justify the rampant sharing of unathorised copies of private works.
The legitimate uses don't have to "justify" those activities. The legitimate uses stand on their own, justify themselves, and justify the use of p2p tools. Your "rampant sharing of unauthorised copies" is justified by outdated distribution models, unreasonable pricing structures, legal attacks against new technologies, and cartels hostile to their customer base.
The *AA is wrong to blame the networks, they should be focused on security problems in the OS they've spread all over their lans, and on the insecure mailreaders installed on those.
They want to maintain the illusion of freedom as much as possible. That's why they don't want Google listing these banned pages to begin with; it makes the censorship more obvious.
Thanks for clarifying. Can you point me to where you determined this?
Google could continue to "do good" and the anti-democratic government could keep their grip on what the Chinese could view.
Sounds like win-win to me!
The question then becomes, "if Google created these 'known unknowns,' how long would it be before Google itself gets blocked?"
Why does that have to be the question? Why can't it be "Is it necessary to put aside our principles of Freedom of Information to get access to the Chinese Market?"
A person would have the moral censure of his community to risk if he were to do this. But a corporation evades it because it has a mandate against moral choices.
Because a corporation will not make the same choices as a person, and because a corporation isn't subject to moral censure in the same way an individual is, the community should have special controls over what the corporation is allowed. This should include restricting its activities in anti-democratic political domains.
This reveals Google's "be good" mantra as nothing more than marketing nonsense.
And why should they be?
Because they have long been beneficiaries if Free and Open Source Software?
Because they are clever enough to recognize that?
Because they don't need to sequester Free Software (a la BSD) away from the community to maintain an advantage in the market place?
That's why, for example, John Gilmore is suing John Ashcroft and not the DoJ. But "The Government" is still referenced in the text of the suit.
Hopefully govt. IT ppl will be careful not to be "tainted" by this source if they are also working to improve OpenOffice.org or other Open Source or Free Software!
Why is it elitism to enjoy solving puzzles, or to recognize that as a job skill?
Any other magazines (online or otherwise) like that out there?
I'm very interested in such a magazine, but disappointed that they almost inevitably are or become those "gadget" magazines spoken of in the description.
I think the advertisers in such a magazine often end up fighting the reader base and pulling the focus of "cheap and homemade".
Maybe there's a better chance this one will stay focused if O'Reilly is the publisher?
If my mod points hadn't been taken early(!) I'd have something for you, now I can just nod in agreement.
These multi-nationals are the real beneficieries of the US Legislature, as becomes obvious every time a choice of either/or is made in the House/Senate: us individuals get sold up the river. Along with the economy and our economic powerbase. The duchies are forming their alignments, and it's time to get out or be a peasant...
It's not like we have much choice: a vote for Bush is a vote for the military/industrial complex, and vote for Kerry is a vote for the information dragons.
I like the way you put it... wish I'd seen it earlier.
:(
But... I don't poke smot. Makes me ill most of the time.
Guess that makes me a redneck.
Oesterreich is the eastern kingdom.
Austria is an english perversion.
But, it would be equally to say that affect is a noun, and effect is a verb.
You are right without being complete and your distinction is rendered useless for the task you set it to.
Abattoir: A public slaughterhouse for cattle, sheep, etc.
The last several post were the reason the companies lobbied for the rule change.
Extra legislation is bloating our government. There is no need for the extra government you and "companies" asked for when all they need to do is comply with existing law and stop lying to their employees about their employment status.
Eventually I put in 16-18 hours days and began wrecking my health and I wouldn't qualify for any extra pay anyway because I was salaried, not hourly.
If you have a record of your hours, I'd recommend a second look at the laws, as sometimes a company will tell you you are "exempt" when you aren't necessarily.
If you are in a position where you are given general goals but don't set your agenda yourself and aren't responsible for it, you can make a case for yourself.
I've seen it happen!