Google Refuses to Remove the Pirate Bay's Homepage
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
10 We should stop Google! 20 Google are acting within the law 30 Then the law is wrong, let's change the law 40 We have laws already about this 50 But those laws are bad, if only we had someone who could stand up for genuine rights 60 Google are standing up for rights 70 But they are abusing their position 80 GOTO 10
http://uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion/ I think it was.
Or copying the search results from Google and pretending your own engine created them. http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/02/google.bing.sting/ind...
Google used to say "Don't be evil," but no company or individual should be in the position where they can sit there and think "Should I be evil or not?"
> And remember… don’t be evil, and if you see something that you think isn’t right – speak up!
The big issue with a phrase like "don't be evil" is that it is ambiguous and highly depends on the understanding of the word "evil" to the individual that reads that line. Google at this point is 80k+ full-time-employees, that I can guarantee will read that phrase to mean different things.
The newer code of conduct tries to codify what "evil" means, to lay a clearer picture for everyone what it means. That way it can't arbitrarily be applied for or against the company based on your an individual's beliefs of what that word means.
[0] https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
That's a feature, not a bug. If you think to yourself:
"Self, is this truly evil? Are there no redeeming factors or are the consequences more heavily tilting to the negative than the positive?"
And the answer comes back: "Yes this is truly evil. No, even from a consequentialist perspective you shouldn't do it."
Then you should speak up. Even if only 1% of Google's employees see something from a certain light and speak up, that's enough! It doesn't mean they get final say, but it encourages a conversation where there might have been none. At the end of the day they can always quit in protest.
That would be "quitting in protest without that costing you anything special".
As for "quitting in protest" period, well, tons of people have quit in protest and risked their "food on the table" for ethical reasons...
Heck, tons of people have risked their lives (and even repercussions against their family), and quit or refused to do things they were ordered to for ethical reasons.
It doesn't take financial stability to do so -- just having a spine.
And here we're talking about sought after engineers at a major company (that can always get another job), and that already make cool 100,000+ a year and most have some savings in the bank.
It should be even easier for them to step down than to some poor guy with 3 kids and hand-to-mouth wages - that might even be blacklisted. And yet many people did the right thing under those circumstances.
If we were talking about Walmart sales associates, I'd have more sympathy for your points.
Sometimes (not always) it's better to try effecting change from the inside.
It's not like this matters. Those 80k+ employees are not the one's that take decisions anyway, their superiors are, and any major bad thing Google does is highlighted from way above.
And it's not necessary for those employees to understand "don't be evil" to mean something particular. It's enough that they moral standards. If they do, they can see what's evil and what's not. If not, whatever the code of conduct was writing wouldn't matter.
And get fired for doing so.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/02/google-employee-fired-aft...
出る釘は打たれる
"The nail that sticks out gets the hammer."
This really comes down to the lack of protections we individually have regarding: having a place to sleep, food, medical care, and more. No work means none of those.
Compare that to this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180421105327/https://abc.xyz/i...
If you're someone who likes to follow trends, then it should be clear to you that Google is trying to get rid of both such comments/values from the company, and will probably start purging the people that still believe like that inside the company, too, as the company starts working with authoritarian regimes and building weapons of death.
Having ethical people inside the company will be like shooting itself in the foot, as it tries to move forward with these projects.
> it is still incredibly dangerous for society that one company > has so much power over what people can find on the internet
That could easily refer to the RIAA / MPAA with their bogus DMCA takedown notices. Particularly when DMCA is misused to take down sites with no direct copyright infringement. Especially when it is obvious bogus, such as a DMCA takedown of someone's nature audio recordings, while the DMCA filer even doubles-down on the notice claiming it infringes the copyright on their music.
There should be a statutory large fine for filing a bogus DMCA notice just as their is a statutory high cost for copyright infringement.
You have more faith in the power of your vote than in the power of your dollar, I take it.
So any crackdown on filing false DMCA notices will need to be extended to private-party DMCA surrogate systems also.
That's why a Statutory fine for specific things such as:
* not stating an actual copyright infringement
* not being the registered owner or agent of the copyright
Those two would get rid of a LOT of abuse immediately. Such as people using DMCA for something not copyright related, such as to shut someone up for saying something they don't like. To silence criticism. Etc. Those are beyond clear examples of DMCA abuse.
The other is when someone who has no actual interest in the copyright merely uses the DMCA to silence something because they recognize it might be a copyright infringement -- whether the actual copyright owner cares or not.
Every single person and corporation is always in a position to act with evil or not. It is impossible to create a society where it is impossible to place people in a position where they have to rely on their morality to act correctly. You can only create a society which instills the right morals; you can support the entities which act with the right morals, and punish those who don't.
But go ahead and try to design a society where no one has the freedom to be evil; you might have missed the week of high school english where we read 1984.
Exactly. To protect ourselves from tyranny, the US established the second amendment. It is preferable if we are equally in a position of asking "should I be evil or not?"
It's arguably more dangerous when the power to be evil is centralized.
And for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources.
This is one of the least thought out arguments against the 2A you'll ever see. It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents. Turning the military, or even the national guard, against the people would be a recipe for a huge number of AWOL soldiers. And guess what; those trained soldiers and veterans, with dozens of guns at home and a love for the country, not the government, will be the ones leading the resistance.
> nukes
Yup. The tyranical government will rule over a hellish wasteland, with nowhere to grow food, no taxable income, and millions of human resources dead. Sure hope you're not the one in charge if an uprising happens, because it seems like you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than stomp out the rebellion.
I’m sure the people of Germany never thought their fellow citizens would turn against them either.
There have been plenty of examples throughout recent history where citizens turn against each other because they believed in the cause of a charismatic leader.
Yeah, that's why the US completely killed it in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Mission Accomplished!
And they were all funded by another superpower. Who is going to fund these rebels? The people in Waco thought they were fighting against a tyrannical government. How did that work out for them?
EDIT:
It doesn't even consider that the military is made up of, you know, Americans, who generally love their country and the values it represents.
Plenty of people in rural Tenessee don’t see those “god hating west coast liberals who are part of the war on Christmas” as “sharing their values”.
It’s only been since the early 80s that the South had to get rid of laws making non heterosexual sex illegal.
How easy was it to get a bunch of people thinking that their government was being taken over by a Muslim who wanted to impose Sharia Law and get Chuck Norrus all riled up thinking that the federal government was trying to take over Texas?
This is an interesting one, because this actually is more of an argument for 2A then you think. For one the Germans didn't turn against what they saw as their fellow citizens, they turned against a minority...and had that minority been armed...well I doubt it would have been as easy as the gestapo raiding houses in the night and putting them on a train to a camp. At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods, but white ones, Koreans as a minority, were able to protect themselves in the famous "roof Korean" incident. 2A if anything protects minorities (and women who are usually at a physical disadvantage from attackers and makes them equally lethal in a situation) from being targeted with outright violence, and the first gun control laws, like those in California were a direct response to minorities (e.g. black people, Black Panthers) arming themselves to protect/assert their rights.
You don't even have to go back that far in American history to see things like coal miners arming themselves against corrupt mining companies who were literally bombing citizens.
You have a short term view of human history, you assume the status quo is permanent, and its almost like the history you were talk in school or chose to read about is selective.
You mean the same German army that it took multiple nations to defeat were going to be stopped by a minority of the population with guns? Again the Germans had tanks, WMDs, bombs, and planes.
At least a few gestapo would have gotten some rounds in the chest for their trouble.
Or they would have used the bigger weapons they already had. A government with more resources can always quash the little guy.
If anything, much like the LA riots when the police derelict of duty, chose to not protect the Korean neighborhoods...
And the Koreans or any of your other examples were going up against a government backed force with access to for all intents and purposes unlimited resources.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People seem to forget that first half is more important than guns.
I dont understand why this phrase keeps being brought up by the HN community which usually doesn't buy marketing gimmicks but in this case seem to be completely befuddled that a company that just said 3 words could somehow do things they may dislike.
Can you really say that a private company blocking a website that helps facilitate illegal activities is "evil"? It might be something you don't like, or it even may be unwise for our society to allow companies to have this much power (as you said), but I don't think I would classify this as "evil".
Very unfortunately neither this item from fantasy book nor corporation like Google can really provide clear statement on what "evil" is. Depend on whoever is in control Google can do whatever they want without ever going against this principle.
Or trusted to be able to tell the difference 100% of the time
Someone could form an organization that's run by donations that could create a web index that isn't influenced by advertising or other third parties. Like a wikipedia type thing.
And I think that is a perfect spot for EFF.
I'm not convinced that a "directory of websites" can work. If it actually becomes popular, then people are willing to pay a pretty penny to get listed. Essentially just becomes another advertising platform except far less fair than what we have with Google.
Imagine just how hilarious the "Payday Loans" or "Online Pharmacy" sections of a popular DMOZ relaunch would be. i.e. Industries that happily bid dollars (plural) per measly PPC click.
https://catalyst-journal.com/vol2/no1/between-cambridge-and-...
How's the USPS doing these days? Answer: it's being propped up like Bernie from Weekend At Bernie's. Spam mail is the only thing keeping it afloat.
A nationalized Microsoft full of federal employees would be an ineffective, bloated mess.
The USPS is the only federal institution required to fully fund its retirement. It's also expected to act like an efficient, private business, but it's unable to set its prices.
The USPS is intentionally hamstrung so that conservatives can point to it as an example of how inefficient government is, and subsequently line their pockets thought privatization.