This is the really disgusting thing. Are they "just" sucking up to management or are they maybe the only ones who buy the propaganda?
Or is this some kind of self-justification process that protects them from their dying sense of guilt?
This is the really disgusting thing. Are they "just" sucking up to management or are they maybe the only ones who buy the propaganda?
Or is this some kind of self-justification process that protects them from their dying sense of guilt?
I'm not familiar with this case, but if e.g. the reason is "Whatever we do, the Chinese government is going to ensure that any search results its population can see are censored. So our choice is whether they get censored Google search results or censored someone-else search results, and it's hard to see how the first of those can be worse either for us or for them" ... then I don't know whether it's actually a good reason, but it does seem like a reason that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing, even if they have a normally functioning sense of guilt.
For the avoidance of doubt, the opposite position -- "if you do this you're an accomplice to oppression, and 'if we don't do it someone else will' is a lousy response" -- also seems to me one that some decent and intelligent people might find convincing. No one on either side of this needs to be an idiot or a scoundrel. (Though I bet some people on both sides are both, because that's always true.)
That is clearly true for China. It seems to be true for Google as well.
There's a case to be made for providing more net information while being less than 100 percent morally pure in the process.
The choice we're confronted with isn't "uncensored vs censored". It's "more information and access vs less information and access".
It's a practical call. Chinese people are very practical, they'll figure it out.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/
As is deliberately killing pedestrians after accidentally injuring them in order to pay a lessor death benefit instead of expensive care.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
Im not worried about their practicality but rather that they are culturally morally bankrupt and revealing how morally bankrupt people like Google are.
The government is, for sure. However, it's the legal system's fault for letting the punishment of injury outweigh the punishment of manslaughter.
Furthermore, it's not as if Google has gone out of its way get into a position of censoring search results in China. Those search results are going to be censored no matter what. What Google does, whether they operate in China or not, doesn't effect that. All that changes is how much search-engine-generated money goes to Google or doesn't.
Ban me for calling it.
At the time I posted, the comment explicitly calling all chinese people "morally bankrupt" was 6 hours old and it was not gray.
Apologies for my overheated response.
Moreover, if you post another national or racial slur, like you did here and confirmed below, we will ban you.
Everyone is equal on some level just by being human. They are inherently worth treating well. That includes freedom from death and harm. But that also includes freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.
Docs, Hangouts, YouTube. All very difficult to censor. Its whack a mole, complicated by https. Information wants to be free.
Standing on principle here denies them that 99%. Are you going to make that call for them, or should they make it for themselves?
This is (as I understand it) a deontological, rather than a consequential, argument. So that cannot really be a 'counterargument' because it has a disjoint set of premises. You can argue that the premise for GP's argument (something along the lines of `The decision of whether to operate Google in China should depend on the aforementioned having better outcomes for chinese citizens than otherwise`) is incorrect or you can argue on the basis of his premise, but giving a different argument on a different premise (something like `the rule "don't censor political speech" should never be broken`) does not make a counterargument.
The counterargument is that suppressing truth and speech is indecent, regardless of intent. That is, the lesser wrong is still wrong. Boiling people down to utilitarian guesswork is part of the problem. It is fair to point out that the alleged decency is premised on skipping past established ethical and moral frameworks.
So let's avoid arguing over the definition of "decent" by being more specific. I claim:
It's possible for someone to endorse the position taken by Google management on this even though that person is highly intelligent, is far from indifferent to others' suffering and oppression, and habitually goes out of their way to treat others well, including others who are unlike them and far away.
I do, of course, agree that if you get to define what "decent" means then you can make it so that no decent person disagrees with you. In this case, I think that requires a definition that has built into it either an answer to the specific object-level question at hand, or else a specific position on a subtle philosophical question (consequentialism versus deontology versus virtue ethics versus whatever else) on which smart people who spend their whole lives thinking about this stuff are far from all agreeing.
That is called ideology
"Ideology is the practice of augmenting reality."
http://mitp.nautil.us/feature/271/ideology-is-the-original-a...
We can expect that a Google employee working with China will be more favourable to the work, even accounting for factors like selection bias.
My money is on self-justification being at least a part of the explanation, but that doesn't preclude some amount of sucking-up to management as well.
IMO, neither. I don't like this purported dichotomy between "management" and "colleagues/employees". I have seen several of my former classmates and colleagues transition into management roles. Their ideology hasn't changed much in the last 20 years. For example, in the Indian context, their view of Kashmir and the army's role there is pretty much the same as the government propaganda. "Management" did not convince them when we were all still in college, and did not convince them when we were all low-level employees. The people just happened to grow up in an environment where a certain ideological bent was considered "right", "virtuous", etc.
Here you had people leaving because of the clash between business ideology and their (as well the outsides) moral values. The company did not only advance and hire people who already had no moral values. They just found out. Now they shift people around until the compatible ones stay.
The mechanism is already there. The difference is only which part of the model to tweaks and for whom.
Yes some can, it's matter of influence or how powerful you are
There are a lot of posters in HN that are FAANG employees, yet talk big game about Open Source, Data Security, Free Speech, etc yet time and time again these companies fail to uphold these values.
When you are making a 6+ figure salary with vesting options it's really easy to bend your principles and if you are lucky you can become wealthy enough to become a philanthropist somewhere down the line to undo some of the damage you have done.
It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone.
People are 99% the same everywhere, but the 1% that makes us different are matters of identity, and that's what we gripe about and go to war over. It's kind of stupid if you ask me, but then again, no one in the history of the world has ever come up with a reliable solution for human nature.
Yes. What is the benefit of hobbling a world-class search engine so that it intentionally prevents "everyone" (I include Chinese citizens in your "everyone") from accessing free information and news and facts about the world and about China itself?
All countries are guilty of mistakes and atrocities. So what is the benefit of preventing citizens from discovering this, learning from it, and discussing it?
I'll list out some of the issues:
1. The view the censorship is immoral. The argument that "we should help them because we can profit and they'll do it with or without us" has some very serious flaws that can be easily shown by a few thought experiments.
For instance: your colleague is going to rob a bank and there's nothing you can do to stop him, is it right for you to volunteer to drive the getaway car since he'll pay you handsomely if you do? If you don't drive, someone else will, and you'll be leaving money on the table.
> It's just business. Americans has been doing business with China, and the Chinese people for decades. In spite of the fact that the west and China are beholden to very different identities, we can still cooperate on things to the benefit of everyone.
2. Doing business with China gives the Communist Party leverage to influence corporate operations elsewhere for ideological reasons. They've shown increasing willingness to use that influence to push their political views (for a recent example, see the recent situation with how foreign airlines represent Taiwan on their foreign-language websites).
Imagine, ten years from now, Google because popular and profitable in mainland China. The Communist Party wants to manage Western perceptions of an issue (say Tibet) and gives Google an ultimatum: derank all pro-Tibet independence websites from the top 20 results of certain Tibet-related searches, or they'll shutdown their Chinese operations. What choice do you think the shareholder-value maximizing corporation is going to make?
This article tackles the topic from a different angle: https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/11/if-the-u-s-doesnt-contr...
You can worry that China could have too much leverage over Google if they become dependent on profits earned in China. It's corroborated in the article you provided:
>a deeply conservative Pence sounded like liberal stalwart Sen. Elizabeth Warren in arguing the Chinese are using America’s own short-term-oriented financial system against it.
Our shareholder value short-term oriented financial system is a problem in our own backyard, something we can do something about rather than fearmongering against China. It remains a strict hypothetical that that Google would kowtow to China's demands and censor it's domestic search engine. I don't think they'll do that, but even if they did, we can cross that bridge when we get to it, until then it's just a hypothetical worst case scenario. If Google has a dangerous amount of control over the flow of information, that's because it's the service that most Americans choose to use, which is kind of the shitty thing about a free and open society. In China if they decide something is a net negative, they can stop it.