To be honest I don't totally see it as hypocrisy, inconsistent? Perhaps a
bit, I actually saw the Google statement as less "we don't support
censorship" and more of a "you broke the implicit (or explicit I don't
know)
agreement. I think the biggest thing was that Google thought that if we were
working with China and going along with their filtering they should be
leaving us alone. Instead they decided to attack us and therefore we can no
longer trust them.
User:Jamesofur
James Alexander
james.alexander(a)rochester.edu
Wiki:jamesofur@gmail.com <Wiki%3Ajamesofur(a)gmail.com>
100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one
:)
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Christopher Grant <
chrisgrantmail(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(from smh article)
Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered
under the Federal
Government's mandatory filter.
The plot thickens... Sure their articles racist and are basically designed
offend everyone, however I personally don't feel conformable with the
government being able to block a site like ED.
-- Chris
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial
> vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other
things
> (like an historical account of a
pro-democracy demonstration), is
hypocrisy,
> then let me be the first to say that I'm
in favor of hypocrisy.
Silly Anthony. Don't you know that China was simply asking Google to
comply with local laws against morals-destroying smut, the propaganda
of life-destroying evil cults, and the subversion of mass-murdering
terrorists?
What's some peculiar racist humor compared with *that*? Strange moral
standards you have there.
> But then, treating one country differently from another country is not
> hypocrisy. Treating one situation differently from another situation
is
not
> hypocrisy. Looking at the relevant part of the Google statement, it
was
> this: "We have decided we are no longer
willing to continue censoring
our
results
on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be
discussing
with the Chinese government the basis on which we
could operate an
unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all."
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
It was a statement specifically about the Chinese government, and about
results on google.cn. Google did not claim or even imply that it was
stopping all censorship altogether. So I don't see the hypocrisy.
It is, at the very least, inconsistent. One set of rules for the
Chinese (and the world), and another set for the Australians. What
difference is there between the 2 situations that justifies this? If
there is no difference, then it's a plain contradiction. (Oh, you
happen to agree with one and not the other? I see...)
--
gwern
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l