Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on February 06, 2012, 09:20:07 am
-
You keep talking about how you support an open, uncensored Internet. In fact, it's the recurring theme of every public announcement you make. Except, of course, when you're bowing to censorship demands in backward-looking countries.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/tech-news/facebook-google-bow-to-indian-censorship-demands/article2327810/
Internet giants Google Inc (GOOG-Q596.880.550.09%) and Facebook removed content from some Indian domain websites on Monday following a court directive warning them of a crackdown “like China” if they did not take steps to protect religious sensibilities.
The two are among 21 companies asked to develop a mechanism to block objectionable material after private petitioners took them to court over images deemed offensive to Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
Two cases have been brought by individuals against internet companies in India, stoking fears about censorship in the world’s largest democracy.
“(Our) review team has looked at the content and disabled this content from the local domains of search, YouTube and Blogger,” Google spokeswoman Paroma Roy Chowdhury said.
So which is it folks? Are you more concerned with all the money you're going to make in these densely-populated but censor-advocating countries, or are you more concerned with principles? Your actions appear to be speaking louder than your words.
*shakes head*
-
Meh... I can always choose between Google's competitors... Like Starpage wink wink.
But you really can't choose with some government law that prevents everybody :(.
-
So it's better for Google to not give people in India a search engine than a somewhat censored search engine that could be bypassed by people who are willing to try? 'cause searching sucked in China when Google was gone, and Baidu and Gougou were not better alternatives.
-
Exactly as SypheDMar said.
Google is not above India's laws. Either they play nice, or they leave like they did with China (however temporary that was). Which would you prefer?
Keep in mind all the alternatives are censored too.
-
Which would you prefer?
That they stick to their principles and pull out of the country entirely. Yes, it sacrifices revenue, but it also sends a very important message.
As SypheDMar said:
'cause searching sucked in China when Google was gone, and Baidu and Gougou were not better alternatives.
India is [on paper] a democracy. You want to see a ripple effect? Deprive a democracy of over a billion people (granted, only a proportion of whom have Internet access) of their ability to access Google's services, Facebook, and every other social media and search service their courts are trying to censor. I guaranfrickintee you there will be immediate and loud backlash from the Internet-savvy populace.
The point: these services claim to abide by principles designed to foster open dialogue and ultimately, freedom of expression. They need to stand by them. THAT provides encouragement for change, not bowing to the status quo.
So yeah, I'd rather they left and forced these governments to inflict the less-popular less-functional and actively-censored alternatives on their populations, then watch the defecation hit the ceiling-mounted oscillator.
EDIT:
Imagine the conversation:
Indian internet user: "Holy crap, why can't I access any of my Google accounts, Facebook, Youtube, Blogger, or a variety of other services that I know and love?"
Indian government: "Well, we passed a law requiring censorship so we don't offend some people's religious sensibilities and these services won't play cricket. Sorry. You'll have to make do with these functionally-inferior alternative services that don't mind censoring what they show you."
IIU: "Isn't this a democracy that support freedom of expression?"
IG: "Of course! But only certain types of expression. You understand, we can't go letting people access material that might offend them, even though they can choose not to see it. That might foster division. Better we just pretend it doesn't exist."
IIU: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
i have never believed google to be the do-gooders they try to appear to be. maybe if there's NOT large amounts of money invovled.
-
i have never believed google to be the do-gooders they try to appear to be. maybe if there's NOT large amounts of money invovled.
Would you expect much else from any for-profit organization? :confused:
-
Still... I would trust Google more then any elected government...
-
i have never believed google to be the do-gooders they try to appear to be. maybe if there's NOT large amounts of money invovled.
Would you expect much else from any for-profit organization? :confused:
no, but apparantly plenty of people do.