The request for data from Google - Page 2

PoBoy321 · #11 02-01-2006, 03:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
People living under repressive regimes that seek to limit their access to information aren't locusts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed a frequent trend in your posts, namely that they are completely devoid of anything which remotely addresses the issue at hand.

I'm really curious how it is wrong for a company like Google to obey the laws of the country in which they are trying to do business.

BluffTHIS! · #12 02-01-2006, 04:02 AM

They have the option not to do business with the devil, which cooperating with a repressive regime's wish to limit free access to news and information is.

PoBoy321 · #13 02-01-2006, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They have the option not to do business with the devil, which cooperating with a repressive regime's wish to limit free access to news and information is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that allowing access to limited information is worse than not supplying access to any information at all?

BluffTHIS! · #14 02-01-2006, 04:32 AM

I am saying that agreeing to be the devil's assistant and only help people of his choosing, doesn't make one a good samaritan.

P.S. Notice that I didn't need to quote your most recent post for it to be clear to others which I am responding to.

PoBoy321 · #15 02-01-2006, 04:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that agreeing to be the devil's assistant and only help people of his choosing, doesn't make one a good samaritan.

P.S. Notice that I didn't need to quote your most recent post for it to be clear to others which I am responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sorry. I generally just hit insta-quote when I'm responding to short posts, just because if it isn't clear to anyone, it clarifies.

Also, I'm not claiming that Google is, or has any obligation to be, "a good Samaritan." In fact, I don't think that I've taken any kind of stance about what my feelings are on the matter.

Anyway, assuming that, as your reply insinuates, you think that Google has a moral obligation here, are you saying that Google needs to decide whether they will do business with "the devil" and shirk their moral obligation to the people of China, refuse to do business with China and ignore their obligation to their shareholders, or offer their services unfiltered in China, thereby undermining the laws of a sovereign nation?

I'm just wondering if you can see the bind that Google would be in having to juggle all of their obligations.

ElliotR · #16 02-01-2006, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the Google subpoena had nothing whatsoever to do with finding terrorists. Damn, another right-wing talking point goes up in smoke!
[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

BluffTHIS! · #17 02-01-2006, 04:49 AM

Google has no obligation to act in an immoral manner in order to increase shareholder profit, which cooperating with repressive measures is. If the contrary were true, then they should also seek to diversify and start hosting kiddie porn sites (which is information that should be blocked).

PoBoy321 · #18 02-01-2006, 04:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Google has no obligation to act in an immoral manner in order to increase shareholder profit, which cooperating with repressive measures is. If the contrary were true, then they should also seek to diversify and start hosting kiddie porn sites (which is information that should be blocked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Google doesn't "host," any sites. They're simply a search engine which guides users to sites hosted elsewhere.

Obviously, Google would be wrong to freely allow access to kiddie porn in the United States because it is illegal here. I'm curious if you have justification for Google limiting access to pornography in other countries which is illegal here, but might be legal there.

Of course, if you were consistent, you would condemn Google for limiting users' access to kiddie porn, the same way that they limit users' access to information deemed to be illegal in other parts of the world.

BluffTHIS! · #19 02-01-2006, 04:57 AM

I don't feel the need to be consistent to the degree of helping perverts feed their sick fantasies that harm children.

PoBoy321 · #20 02-01-2006, 05:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel the need to be consistent to the degree of helping perverts feed their sick fantasies that harm children.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you concede the fact that your arguments are logically inconsistent and therefore flawed, that's fine.