Some results are NOT better than none, if the information is misleading. Which was the very point of my original post. Try addressing that point. Why is misinformation better than no information? We aren't talking about "not the best information in the world" - but deliberate lies.
1. Most users never go beyond the first page of search results 2. Most internet users are not technically savvy, and likely to be lazy 3. More young people are being born who do not know history yet. 4. Google is seen as a symbol of freedom, and it is likely that the Chinese think it a reliable source of information compared to the government
What this amount to, is Google putting their "stamp of approval" on information that is increasingly exposed to a young audience. if they see Google saying the same thing as their government - that might be enough for them to stop questioning the government, and accept the propaganda.
Certainly. But I'd say that limited information is better than no information.
Except that's not what's happening. Erroneous information is being pushed to the top of Google China searches, and accurate information is being eliminated.
No point whatsoever. But I doubt very much it would do that.
Why? That's exactly what it does. Did you read the news or articles about this?
I believe I understand your concern. But I just think some google is better than none, and that some google may well lead to all google but that no google might not. Whew.
But we are not talking about the same Google. Google seems good to you, but you would hate Google if it were the same as Google China. No more searching for information about the Democratic Party, or any criticisms of the government. Is that what you seek on Google?
People hated AltaVista and other search engines before Google - and they didn't even censor stuff, they were just less-than-perfect search engines!
That's strange. Arean't the liberals the ones who support freedom to have sex, and freedom to view pornography? While the conservatives are the ones fighting natural biology and saying that sex is bad, and should be limited to domestic situations and procreation? Wasn't it conservatives who were outraged to see janet Jackson's nipple?
Gates has helped millions of people by donating more money than most large countries. This is a wonderful thing and I applaud him for it.
At the same time, he has caused technological progress to be set back by a decade. this technology could have been used to help people. I believe that the world would benefit more from Microsoft never having existed, than it benefits from gates' chritable donations.
He has also perpetuated an atmosphere of greed, technical ignorance, and bought journalism.
1) if they the rumor sites could no longer post secrets, then the effect is that it is shut down.
No, it isn't. they can still run - they are just increasingly hesitant to break the law while doing so. Why is it a bad thing to protect trade secrets and prevent illegal behaviour?
2) Apple did sue Apple II clone makers back in the early 80s.
So, what's wrong with suing people who violate your intellectual property?
You can only give two examples, one in the 80s - and neither of them are anywhere near close to evil or illegal. So what is Apple's great offense against humanity again?
personally, I've stopped using search engines altogether. i am thinking of quitting the internet entriely. It's not just Google, the whole thing is a corrupt time-waster. What's the point? It's much more rewarding interacting and researching in the offline world. It's going to be hard to kick the addiction, though.
Should it work with the government, and perhaps get the opportunity in influence change, or should it just walk away? In this case, walking away would do nothing.
Those aren't the only options. Google could also walk away - and use its tremendous influence and media reach to speak loudly against the Chinese government. This would not only boost their image, but have a lot more effect on shaming the Chinese government out of their draconian ways.
Drama relies on conflict. It is inherently unsustainable to perform a drama that has one consistent, positive message. That's called advertising. people don't want to watch advertising. They want to watch people fail, fall in love, kill each other, fight, and fuck.
Nobody wants to hear about corporate/scientific success. Look at "The Office" for example - it is popular because it shows how crap the real world is. If it showed the office workers all getting along well and being productive, nobody would watch it. 'Happy Valley' - screw that.
This is a false dilemma. there are technical means that uncensored google search results could be provided to the Chinese. it's just that Google doesn't want to bother with freedom of speech, it just wants to sell a product.
In fact, many Chinese could get Google results before. the Great Firewall is not completely effective. Now that Google is collaborating, Google themselves will make sure that the Chinese can't get uncensored search results.
Don't believe the PR statement. Google is actively making censorship worse in China, along with Microsoft and all the others.
so while the amount of censoring technically is increasing, so is the chance that relevant information will get by those censors.
So, what he's really saying is that Microsoft's censorship technology doesn't work properly - and therefore they misrepresented themselves in their agreement with the Chinese government. Shouldn't Microsoft be able to deliver on what they say they will? Why is their censorship software ineffective?
Yes. Bad information is worse than no information. What's the point of using Google if it only mimics the government view? They would not be finding out anything new that they couldn't get from their local government propaganda agent.
When they sort out their freedom of speech issue - then let's talk about information sharing.
This demonstrates so clearly that Gates' supposedly charitable work is nothing but a PR exercise. If he is willing to help China, that demonstrates he doesn't really care about other people, so long as he makes a profit or looks good. Fucking disgusting hypocrites. That goes for Google, too. What's with these people who make grand statements about the good they are doing in the world, but then go totally against what they supposedly believe?
Do not forget that both Google and Gates speak from the position of a BUSINESSMAN! Not as a human rights activists, citizen or politician!
Gates actually claims to be a humanitarian, and has received accolades for such. Even a knighthood from the Queen, if I remember correctly. So it is very hypocritical to try and boost his image through charity - while in another role, undermining his charity work, by supporting much worse things.
I never said they had any obligation to go into China. It certainly benefits them, however, so why shouldn't they? Could you tell me how a company being in multiple regions is totalitarianism?
Why shouldn't they? because they are supporting a totalitarian regime. That is unethical. I never claimed that being in multiple regions is totalitarianism. I said that helping China's totalitarian regime with their censorship is supporting totalitarianism. Do you have any reasonable argument that it does not?
I don't think going against human rights is perfectly OK in any situation. It's a lesser of two evils scenario at best. My point was that at least there's some good coming of it.
So, how is it the lesser of two evils? this doesn't accomplish anything good. The lesser of two evils (or rather, the non-evil approach) would be not to go into China until they allow freedom of speech.
Btw, could you tell me exactly what Google is doing right now that is so bad?
They are trying to monopolize the internet - and they are using lies (hey, we're a friendly company) to sell advertising based on datamining.
Sounds like a lot of fuss over things that I haven't heard. I don't recall anyone claiming that the accident was inevitable, or that the astronauts would have died instantly.
As to whether it was "live" when I watched it - I have never claimed this - but I was a young schoolkid at the time, so I wouldn't have really been aware if it was or not. I also don't know of people going around claiming they saw it live as some sort of badge of honour. As for "exploded" - that's fairly semantic. For example, you have "exploded" views in technical illustration - that doesn't mean that the object was actually detonated to make the drawing. "Explosion" often refers to any rapid break-up, whether a "traditional explosion" or not.
I don't understand this attitude. How does the fact that it happened a couple of months ago, change the facts of what happens? If something is worth discussing, why should it matter if it is not "fresh news."?
Often it's better to discuss things after some time has passed. Personally, I hate this "hot news story!" and "Digg already did it" crap. All that it leads to is people not thinking through their posts, and rushing to be the first to comment. If your comment is relevant, it will still be relevant in a month or a year's time. Technology sites would be a lot better if they took more time to discuss issues - rather than this ADD-like obsession with news.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Don't blame me. I'm a whale biologist.
Right. And blocking the warez sites is also wrong. I don't see how Google doing bad things in the US justifies bad actions in China.
It was just looking for seamen to swallow.
Wrong.
Some results are NOT better than none, if the information is misleading. Which was the very point of my original post. Try addressing that point. Why is misinformation better than no information? We aren't talking about "not the best information in the world" - but deliberate lies.
Something I haven't seen addressed:
1. Most users never go beyond the first page of search results
2. Most internet users are not technically savvy, and likely to be lazy
3. More young people are being born who do not know history yet.
4. Google is seen as a symbol of freedom, and it is likely that the Chinese think it a reliable source of information compared to the government
What this amount to, is Google putting their "stamp of approval" on information that is increasingly exposed to a young audience. if they see Google saying the same thing as their government - that might be enough for them to stop questioning the government, and accept the propaganda.
Except that's not what's happening. Erroneous information is being pushed to the top of Google China searches, and accurate information is being eliminated.
No point whatsoever. But I doubt very much it would do that.
Why? That's exactly what it does. Did you read the news or articles about this?
I believe I understand your concern. But I just think some google is better than none, and that some google may well lead to all google but that no google might not. Whew.
But we are not talking about the same Google. Google seems good to you, but you would hate Google if it were the same as Google China. No more searching for information about the Democratic Party, or any criticisms of the government. Is that what you seek on Google?
People hated AltaVista and other search engines before Google - and they didn't even censor stuff, they were just less-than-perfect search engines!
That's strange. Arean't the liberals the ones who support freedom to have sex, and freedom to view pornography? While the conservatives are the ones fighting natural biology and saying that sex is bad, and should be limited to domestic situations and procreation? Wasn't it conservatives who were outraged to see janet Jackson's nipple?
At the same time, he has caused technological progress to be set back by a decade. this technology could have been used to help people. I believe that the world would benefit more from Microsoft never having existed, than it benefits from gates' chritable donations.
He has also perpetuated an atmosphere of greed, technical ignorance, and bought journalism.
No, it isn't. they can still run - they are just increasingly hesitant to break the law while doing so. Why is it a bad thing to protect trade secrets and prevent illegal behaviour?
2) Apple did sue Apple II clone makers back in the early 80s.
So, what's wrong with suing people who violate your intellectual property?
You can only give two examples, one in the 80s - and neither of them are anywhere near close to evil or illegal. So what is Apple's great offense against humanity again?
personally, I've stopped using search engines altogether. i am thinking of quitting the internet entriely. It's not just Google, the whole thing is a corrupt time-waster. What's the point? It's much more rewarding interacting and researching in the offline world. It's going to be hard to kick the addiction, though.
Actually, I know plenty of people who don't buy any consumer products, and live in a sustainable way directly from natural and home-made products.
Those aren't the only options. Google could also walk away - and use its tremendous influence and media reach to speak loudly against the Chinese government. This would not only boost their image, but have a lot more effect on shaming the Chinese government out of their draconian ways.
Didn't Bush straight-out admit that he was spying on citizens, and that anyone who questioned this was giving aid to terrorists?
Are you fucking kidding me? They're everywhere. Apparently even among the White House Press Corps.
Nobody wants to hear about corporate/scientific success. Look at "The Office" for example - it is popular because it shows how crap the real world is. If it showed the office workers all getting along well and being productive, nobody would watch it. 'Happy Valley' - screw that.
In fact, many Chinese could get Google results before. the Great Firewall is not completely effective. Now that Google is collaborating, Google themselves will make sure that the Chinese can't get uncensored search results.
Don't believe the PR statement. Google is actively making censorship worse in China, along with Microsoft and all the others.
So, what he's really saying is that Microsoft's censorship technology doesn't work properly - and therefore they misrepresented themselves in their agreement with the Chinese government. Shouldn't Microsoft be able to deliver on what they say they will? Why is their censorship software ineffective?
When they sort out their freedom of speech issue - then let's talk about information sharing.
This demonstrates so clearly that Gates' supposedly charitable work is nothing but a PR exercise. If he is willing to help China, that demonstrates he doesn't really care about other people, so long as he makes a profit or looks good. Fucking disgusting hypocrites. That goes for Google, too. What's with these people who make grand statements about the good they are doing in the world, but then go totally against what they supposedly believe?
Gates actually claims to be a humanitarian, and has received accolades for such. Even a knighthood from the Queen, if I remember correctly. So it is very hypocritical to try and boost his image through charity - while in another role, undermining his charity work, by supporting much worse things.
Why shouldn't they? because they are supporting a totalitarian regime. That is unethical. I never claimed that being in multiple regions is totalitarianism. I said that helping China's totalitarian regime with their censorship is supporting totalitarianism. Do you have any reasonable argument that it does not?
I don't think going against human rights is perfectly OK in any situation. It's a lesser of two evils scenario at best. My point was that at least there's some good coming of it.
So, how is it the lesser of two evils? this doesn't accomplish anything good. The lesser of two evils (or rather, the non-evil approach) would be not to go into China until they allow freedom of speech.
Btw, could you tell me exactly what Google is doing right now that is so bad?
They are trying to monopolize the internet - and they are using lies (hey, we're a friendly company) to sell advertising based on datamining.
As to whether it was "live" when I watched it - I have never claimed this - but I was a young schoolkid at the time, so I wouldn't have really been aware if it was or not. I also don't know of people going around claiming they saw it live as some sort of badge of honour. As for "exploded" - that's fairly semantic. For example, you have "exploded" views in technical illustration - that doesn't mean that the object was actually detonated to make the drawing. "Explosion" often refers to any rapid break-up, whether a "traditional explosion" or not.
Often it's better to discuss things after some time has passed. Personally, I hate this "hot news story!" and "Digg already did it" crap. All that it leads to is people not thinking through their posts, and rushing to be the first to comment. If your comment is relevant, it will still be relevant in a month or a year's time. Technology sites would be a lot better if they took more time to discuss issues - rather than this ADD-like obsession with news.