"...Dragonfly is well aligned with Google’s mission. China has the largest number of Internet users of all countries in the world, and yet, most of Google’s services are unavailable in China. This situation heavily contradicts our mission, “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”..."
Ignoring the rest of the logic and values questions involved, a mission is what you want to see happen, not what you're going to do. You may do nothing -- and that might be the best thing you can do for your mission to succeed.
Missions are not to-do lists. They are statements of value that are supposed to be more important than the entity stating them. People die on important missions. The mission is what the important thing is, not how you fit into it.
I think it's too easy to judge without ever living in China. People should always look at both sides, and try to understand the whole situation.
Ofc people in China strive for a service which would be able to compete with their current search engine.
And Google in China would probably be way better than the current one.
Of course it's kinda sad that Google would need to censor results, which kinda conflicts with their missions - but apparently it's the law in China, and every company there needs to follow the law.
Google is a business, and it would kinda be not rational to skip the business they could make in China.
It's important for these voices to be heard. Despite a couple thousand signatures on the other dissenting memo, there's no evidence that a majority of Googlers are willing to actively vandalize/cannibalize revenues, while Microsoft, Apple, Amazon etc. make all exceptions demanded by China, and bolster their revenues, market-cap.
Dissenting Googlers need to understand that Google doesn't operate in a vacuum, where rules apply differently for the rest of the market, and dissenting Googlers get to guilt trip their patent company into leaving billions on the table, for feelz
Tim Cook set the standard when he smiled and shook the hand of a dictator that presides over the execution of homosexuals. In the future Google, Apple, and Amazon can build software to help them identify and execute homosexuals.
If we feel this is incompatible with our values, I strongly think that diplomacy and national level polciy is the place to take action. We cannot leave it up to individual companies to dedide these actions, whilst at the same time holding a national polciy that holds these countries as close allies, and most favoured trading partners.
I guess an argument to make in Dragonfly's favor is that if we leave it up to the government an even more draconian solution will be given to the Chinese people. Google offering their product gives them the opportunity to provide more information access than the people would otherwise get. There is only so much that can be censored, after all, and perhaps the massive information access will overwhelm any possible attempt at censorship.
This argument is repeated over and over again as if Google is magical and the Chinese government is incompetent.
Technogy does not create democracies and free societies. China's belt and road project is going to create further economic freedom. Western values aren't needed when you have job opportunities, can send your kids to great schools, take a vacation, and buy a nice house.
>if we leave it up to the government an even more draconian solution will be given to the Chinese people
Nice narrative crafting. I could just as easily say "if Google comes in, their well-known software prowess will add efficiency and intrusiveness to the government's draconian powers."
> There is only so much that can be censored, after all, and perhaps the massive information access will overwhelm any possible attempt at censorship.
The existing great firewall doesn't work because it's perfect. It works because it targets low-hanging fruit, gets better over time and scare most everyday people into conformity.
Yes, yours is a good counter argument. I was trying to think of a possible benefit to Dragonfly that might be in the subtext of this memo. If my argument is correct, of course they won't write a memo that just comes out and says, "this way we can help the Chinese have more freedom," but instead would frame it as "greater access to information."
>Just this week, a public memo written by current Google staff urged that Dragonfly should be dropped because it “aids the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable.”
20th century rhetoric aside, I can see no way to massively censor the internet that will not be adopted shortly in its own flavor by every other country hand wringing over the latest overblown 'social crisis'.
""...can't you just make us a general purpose computer that runs all the programs, except the ones that scare and anger us? Can't you just make us an Internet that transmits any message over any protocol between any two points, unless it upsets us?"" - Cory Doctorow
"Can't you make a search engine that will allow access to any information located on the web, unless it's something naughty in the eyes of the government?"
i wonder what will happen first - china's panopticon draconian state being adopted by everyone in the world or the chinese government being taken down by a foreign state for "acting up" as they are wont to do.
How many of these low-level workers are receiving second paychecks from national governments? We can be reasonably assured that at least some SREs are; what about the anonymous purveyors of these sorts of letters?
I think people view this very much as an us-vs-them, but the “us” is easily polluted with those quietly receiving additional compensation to further their (second) employer’s interests.
Just empty accusations, and frankly insulting to anyone who disagrees with dissenters. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. are all following China's data policies, but when a bunch of Googlers want the same, you accuse them of paybacks?
No, I am sure that there are at least a sprinkling of both US and foreign intelligence assets within the ranks at Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon too. Why wouldn’t there be?
Apple and Amazon have a history of supoorting governments that oppress women and LGBT folks. I guess that's okay because some employees at those companies don't care about women and gays in, say, Saudi Arabia and think they are delivering some really cool products!
I believe that both the US and Chinese governments would see Google entering the Chinese market (in a censored form) as a benefit to each of their respective countries. Who said anything about other governments? The US gains visibility this way.
Ignoring the rest of the logic and values questions involved, a mission is what you want to see happen, not what you're going to do. You may do nothing -- and that might be the best thing you can do for your mission to succeed.
Missions are not to-do lists. They are statements of value that are supposed to be more important than the entity stating them. People die on important missions. The mission is what the important thing is, not how you fit into it.