Google threatens to pull out of Australia over censorship

[Einzige]

Then how is that different from the Chinese government wishing to reserve some information for itself, since another organization like Tibet might be in a position to compromise that information? Then China is entirely within its right to keep that information from being released. Or should China have paid Googel to censor information for it, like how the Russian mafia does it?

Because the People's Republic of China wasn't paying (or in other way reciprocating) Google to disclose that information. Had they done so, it would have been a perfectly legitimate transaction for Google to make - provided the Tibetans weren't doing the same, in which case it'd have been a breech of faith.

Also, why should they censor the satellite photos of Russian oligarch mansions? From orbit, those Russian oligarch mansions are in plain sight of the satellites - just like how they are in plain sight to any passerby who can see those big ass buildings from the street or something. Why is Google intentionally and deliberately obscuring things, for money, that should normally be publicly visible?

You assume they ought to be publicly visible. Why's this? I have no doubt the Russian dons are in extremely precarious positions; but so is, for instance, a wife fleeing her abusive husband. Nobody would demand that the latter's new residency be included on Google Earth.

And, also, if the government and mafia can pay Googel to censor shit for whatever reasons, does this mean other people - even laymen - can request Googel to block out their houses from Googel Earth?

They ought to be able to, and I can think of quite a few reasons why they should be able to - see above for one.

Or do they need to pay moneys? How much moneys? Is this censorship service available to anyone, or just to VIPs?

The manner of transaction would be a corporate policy decision.

*snip hurf-durf-ing*

[Shroom Man 777]

So China should've paid Googel for providing censorship, instead of being cheapskates about it? And censorsing information should be a service Googel should provide to anyone and everyone (for a price), instead of nonsense "be good" nonsense?

I guess that works for me. If Googel will give me censorship services, it will be my favorite anti-freedom corporation.

[atg]

What I'm saying is that morality/principles/whatever is NOT the main driving force behind Google's moves.

And, if you were capable of reading, you'd note that neither did I.

To use your own phrase "you implied it".

You will of course point out where I said making a profit was evil... Oh wait I didn't!

Then perhaps you'll be wiser in your choice of words the next time you decide to become Mr. Populist.

If this is your lame ass attempt at trying to conceed the point while retaining the high ground then consession accepted.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Why the hell would you waste resources building up a market and then throw it away?

Because it would further endear your customer base to you in regions that are ill-disposed to your emerging market. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

And is motivated by profit not principle. Concession accepted.

DIG! DING! DING! We have a winner! "it would have impeded their profits". So by your own statement Google is acting in what is their best profitable interests, not principles.

Which, as you've already agreed, is hardly exclusive to doing the 'right' thing.

Most likely they wanted to pull out and the hacking/human rights/ethics was a convenient talking point to get free publicity.

And? That's exactly what I'm arguing - that "the right thing" and "the right thing to do for our shareholders" were, in this instance, mutually inclusive, and Google ought to be praised for its actions and not lambasted as the shadow agents of some malevolent power.

.....and the moving goalposts. Your initial posts were never about shareholders interests, never about profit and principles co-existing. It took you four posts, if I'm counting correctly, to go from "Google are freedom lovers!" to "Well they're doing it cause profit and the right thing line up".

For the record lets look at your two initial posts:

... Or maybe it just means that Google is pro-freedom?

What does the U.S. government have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that this could very well be a principled stand on the part of one of my very favorite corporations.

Yep you sure changed your tune.

[Lusankya]

Because the People's Republic of China wasn't paying (or in other way reciprocating) Google to disclose that information. Had they done so, it would have been a perfectly legitimate transaction for Google to make - provided the Tibetans weren't doing the same, in which case it'd have been a breech of faith.

Yes they were. They were paying them in services - mainly the service of letting Google run host their services in China. It was a part of their contract.

You assume they ought to be publicly visible. Why's this? I have no doubt the Russian dons are in extremely precarious positions; but so is, for instance, a wife fleeing her abusive husband. Nobody would demand that the latter's new residency be included on Google Earth.

Unless the Russian dons are writing their names on top of their mansions, there is no way of telling whose residency any particular building is unless you are already privy to said information. As for women fleeing abusive husbands, their residencies are included on Google Earth. Unless they flee to the home of a Russian mafia don, that is.

[Einzige]

To use your own phrase "you implied it".

Except, in your case, it's actually true.

And is motivated by profit not principle. Concession accepted.

Once again: it's possible to be motivated by more thing than one thing at a time - hence 'subtlety'.

.....and the moving goalposts. Your initial posts were never about shareholders interests, never about profit and principles co-existing.

Uh, no. No, it wasn't. I said:

... Or maybe it just means that Google is pro-freedom?

Nowhere did I argue that they must be motivated by some singular, monolithic impulse towards freedom, as you seem to be arguing that they must be driven by the profit-motive.

It took you four posts, if I'm counting correctly, to go from "Google are freedom lovers!" to "Well they're doing it cause profit and the right thing line up".

... Or that's what I've been saying, and you decided to co-opt my initial post to score some sycophantic blow against libertarianism?

Yep you sure changed your tune.

If you weren't an idiot you'd realize that what you consider two separate tunes are little more than variations on the same theme.

[atg]

Once again: it's possible to be motivated by more thing than one thing at a time - hence 'subtlety'.

Being motivated by two things at once isn't subtlety dumbass.

Nowhere did I argue that they must be motivated by some singular, monolithic impulse towards freedom, as you seem to be arguing that they must be driven by the profit-motive.

Of course they're driven by profit motive - why the hell else would they exist?

... Or that's what I've been saying, and you decided to co-opt my initial post to score some sycophantic blow against libertarianism?

What has libertarianism got to do with this other than explaining your love for a company? And no thats NOT what you were initially saying - hence moving the goalposts.

If you weren't an idiot you'd realize that what you consider two separate tunes are little more than variations on the same theme.

Fine call it "variations on the same theme" if you want. The point is when called on it you changed what you were saying with regard to what Google's motivations are.

[ThomasP]

An open and uncensored Internet is in the best interests of Google's business model right now, at least over the long run.

The censoring deal with the PRC may have been a short-term matter, something profitable at the time but also something they weren't interested in pursuing over the long run once they became subject to attacks.

I don't see how comparing that to private individuals paying to have their information removed from what amounts to a public database is incongruent with that. By and large it's to Google's benefit to keep things as open and readily accessible as possible, and rejecting national-scale filtering is right in line with that. Refusing money to protect the privacy of individuals is a wholly different issue.

[Rogue 9]

The whole "we love cash" line did kind of give it away, I thought. ;p

[Rye]

What does the U.S. government have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that this could very well be a principled stand on the part of one of my very favorite corporations.

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

It's not so bad. Not all business is no-principles profit maximisation, some traders and organisations are more ethical than others. Google kept their ads unobtrusive after years of popups and horrid garish flash ads being the norm, they gave us google Earth and street view, for free, they're in my "cool book". I would rather google succeed than many more douchey organisations.