"lets prove we're not too big by teaming up to become bigger"
Not only do are they doing the exact thing they are being accused of, but they are doing with the worst company. I can't think of anything Google could have done that would be further from "Don't be evil."
>When are we going to stop idolising these people?
What's even better is most ethical and moral people know these companies do bad things, but in the best case are afraid to speak out because the companies wield so much career and economic influence. In the worst case, people are wilfully helping out for a pay cheque.
There are some funny things going on in Silicon Valley. For years tech billionaires have been telling us how there's no place on earth for doing business like the Valley. Now they are packing up and moving to Texas because they never had any intention of sharing their ungodly wealth.
This is not a "good" system. Here's hoping the Biden administration (with the help of advocates like AOC) come down hard, finally. But I'm skeptical.
This is reductivist to the point of insanity. Google is a large company, and this news makes me ashamed of the behaviors of thr execs at the helm, ceetainly, but not everyone inside of Google are evil, or passively in line with these guys.
I'm a software engineer in research, actively working on projects that are open source and designed to better the field of AI and CS as a whole. The work my group does is also applied research, and we are doing work to change policies internally for the better.
I know of literally nowhere else in the industry where I can do this. How, exactly, does this make me evil again?
> I know of literally nowhere else in the industry where I can do this. How, exactly, does this make me evil again?
I wouldn’t say it makes you evil - but it sounds like you’ve reached a decision that you can tolerate those actions in exchange for a paycheck.
I don’t think anyone can judge themselves morally perfect, but I also don’t think it’s really possible to compartmentalize your association with your employer - “I only identify with the good things I like”. The comment you replied to was deleted before I could read it, I’m not replying to their specific comments
You know the potential harm the company you choose to work for, and you've decided to look past that for a presumably large salary.
It's no different to working for a chemical company you knlw are dumping toxic sludge into the environment then saying but i only work in the label printing department.
You probably aren't evil, but you have blood on your hands and don't bd surprised if people judge you for that.
Ignore the noise. Big players in the space will always draw criticism. There's a huge difference between an organization and an individual. There's value in what you do, and I appreciate your work.
I get that -- just not happy about being compared to war criminals. And annoyingly there are real conversations to be had on the topic of Big Tech being too big or too powerful, which are hard with all the rhetoric in the way.
Presumably you and most of us here on HN have plenty of options regarding where we work, so I would say that if you work for a questionable company, then yes, you are, indeed, questionable. I wouldn't say evil exactly, but I certainly do question your ethics and morals a bit.
Now, its important to note that I do not know your personal circumstances, so I wouldn't go out of my way to tell you that you made bad choices or anything like that, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't silently (ok not so silently now, but you did ask) question your choices at least a little bit. At the end of the day, only you can know how moral you are as a person, but if writing drivers helps evil company maintain its evil, then...
> Is this worthy of social outcast?
Of course not, we're all humans and unless you directly do evil acts, I wouldn't say you should be socially outcast for it. But people will form opinions based on who you work for.
Linux kernel source is a good start. Read up on just about everything in thr kernel docs on I2C, SPI, and regsets. Read datasheets, play around with dev boards.
There's no manul for it, really -- its close to old school software engineering on old machines. You have to learn the raw memory layouts, interfaces and some level of electronics theory, and wrestle with datasheets in the start.
Once you've figured out how a peripheral does its work, then you start looking at kernel drivers. For Android, drivers are a split thing: you have to write the kernel driver, then write a user space component called the HAL backend. There's a bit more documentation on that in thr AOSP tree, but not a whole lot.
Basically, you have to learn by doing. Find a chip you want to use in Android, and give it a try on a PandaBoard or some other SBC that can run it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Its good to know that there is no quick path to this and simply need to sit down and understand the code, and play around with real hardware.
With the amount of human rights abuses, criminal activity, worker harm, and sexual harassment that's been disclosed about Google execs over the last several years, isn't it evil to make those people richer?
There isn't a single good guy at the top of Google. How can working there in 2020 not be a red flag to future employers that you stayed when you should've known better?
Don't get me wrong, there are workers trapped by visa policies or people who honestly lack the job mobility, but if you do legitimately have a choice where you work, doesn't it start to say something about you after a while?
I do honestly hesitate to vilify a large class of people solely based on employment, but I don't think it's an entirely unwarranted question: Can you be a good person if you choose to further the agenda of evil?
You said you "write drivers for phones". That sounds innocent enough, and I'm sure it's interesting work. But if that's Android, we should consider that Android will likely be found to have been built upon a stolen platform. It was created by a man who regularly sexually harassed employees, and whom Google paid a $90 million bonus after they knew that. The guys who still have a controlling interest in Google have all also sexually harassed employees, and continue to profit from Android today.
Android has no meaningful competition[1]. Android generally is provided with terms that extend and reinforce Google's monopoly, via a contract called the MADA. Every phone manufacturer has to agree to it, and it requires including and showcasing other Google apps. It's operated kinda like a cartel, and Google has threatened to banish manufacturers for things like, working with other search engines, web browsers, or location providers. Hilariously, Google has tried to present this cartel as some sort of open "alliance"... just an alliance where they are in charge and anyone who doesn't comply with their decisions is out of business.
Android was built and serves to protect Google's interest on mobile platforms. If location services is enabled, Google collects the location of nearly everyone on earth every five minutes. They've been caught regularly lying or obscuring how to disable this. Google has interfered with multiple attempts to protect user privacy on their platform, and while other web browsers have moved to block tracking by ad networks, Google engaged in marketing campaigns on how blocking tracking allegedly harmed user privacy.
Isn't working on this a political act? Can we separate pure engineering from the goals it furthers?
[1] iOS is not available to be licensed by manufacturers for use in phones. Android's only actual competitors are like Tizen, Sailfish, and maybe a couple flavors of Linux that work on phones.
If I jump to another company that "looks better" in the press, in Twitter circles etc... it's more likely I've gone somewhere which just doesn't allow employees to complain about things.
Every company has demons as bad as, if not worse -- the only difference with Google is employees aren't afraid to openly share the skeletons from the closet, and things like Maven/Dragonfly got cancelled as a result. Many other companies would've just fired half the workforce.
I don't like everything that happens here, but at least I get the impression that stuff is out in the open.
That's fair. I would express though that every time these skeletons happen, the whistleblowers and organizers don't survive the trip: Everyone from the Google Walkout organization was retaliated against and were fired or pushed to quit.
Maven got cancelled, but Google now has a contract with ICE/CBP's "virtual border wall" program and is working on a big contract with Saudi Arabia, after, you know, meeting with the very same guy who had a journalist cut into pieces. Thousands of Googlers may have walked out before, but they walked back in, and haven't walked out again, even though things are just as bad... or wose.
Timnit Gebru was immediately walked out for daring to question the ethics of Google's large scale AI systems. Lauded engineers like Jeff Dean were directly involved and defended the decision to get rid of her.
Sure, Google won't fire half it's workforce overnight, and plenty of rabblerousers are still there. But they keep removing the instigators who are loud enough to speak up and start those complaint processes.
And sure, moving to another FAANG isn't necessarily going to help, they all have those skeletons. But there is a ton of tech that isn't done by Fortune 50 companies. There's a ton of tech that is for the good of humanity or on new and innovative upstarts. The only alternative to Google isn't Facebook or Twitter.
> And sure, moving to another FAANG isn't necessarily going to help, they all have those skeletons. But there is a ton of tech that isn't done by Fortune 50 companies. There's a ton of tech that is for the good of humanity or on new and innovative upstarts. The only alternative to Google isn't Facebook or Twitter.
I would be happy to hear of tech companies falling under that bucket which meaningfully employ PhD's, and are either located in a low cost of living location or pay comparably to FAANG in a high cost of living location.
The question shouldn't be "can I make as much working for non-evil[1] companies" but rather how much of a premium are you willing to give up for doing what is good for society. For me, I'll happily earn less if it means that my conscience[2] is clear.
[1] I mean, I'm using "evil" loosely here. Its just an illustration, I'm not going to argue about how evil or not evil FAANG are.
[2] Of course, everyone has a different definition of what they consider questionable and will therefore draw the line in different places. Its a personal decision, but you should hopefully understand why someone who doesn't agree with your definition might judge you for it, rightly or wrongly.
On the contrary, I think we'll look back on this era and be sad about how we swung between extremes and lost the middle ground. Lost the concept of redemption and the understanding that most people are not one-sided and can be both forces for good and make mistakes at the same time.
There is a difference though, Twitter is usually critiqued for its user's behavior, not really for its own decisions. You can have a decent Twitter (or even Instagram) experience if you don't follow toxic people. Twitter is mostly a mirror of our behavior, the company itself isn't really actively evil.
On the other hand you can't really escape Google as they are actively trying to insert themselves into everything. And Facebook is a bit of both, toxic communities and trying to be everywhere.
Twitter's own decisions regarding labeling disinformation are widely panned by right-wing circles and government. Twitter CEO Dorsey has been in congressional hearings multiple times over this.
Stopping using Facebook is easy. Stopping being used by Facebook is just as hard if not more.
Facebook has its spyware embedded in the majority of apps out there, most companies willingly share their customers' personal details with them for ad targeting purposes and Facebook uses social engineering to trick people into sharing their contacts list which includes your details.
Too late to edit or delete my comment here, but for the record I meant to say Facebook is WORSE than Google is WORSE than Twitter. I had '>' symbols and then decided to switch it to words without fully thinking thru the semantic meaning. Oops :(
Nothing 'definite' about those statements, they are just opinions, as we all have.
I'd say FB is worst because of their reuse and reselling of personal data, their deliberate designs of making their service more and more invasive, their purchase of competing services and monopolised approach to everything.
Google are no saints either, not by a long stretch.
Twitter has far more influence than anyone would expect
Facebook is absolutely worse than google, in addition to doing all of the horrific things google does, they’ve sold “privacy” VPNs that recorded information, repeatedly lied and reneged on promises.
It's incredible to me that Facebook still has a worse image than Google: Google can do the exact same thing, for longer, and still people treat Facebook like they're a degree worse for some reason. Both ad companies are bad.
Why would it be better that they anticipated the current situation years ahead of time and then took actions that would allow them to continue to do it be better than it simply being reactionary? This is way worse.
Time to reevaluate what you think about Google and why you think that. Google is an advertising company not an IT company. Yes they use and create a lot of technology but they don’t get paid for any of it. They get paid for advertising. They’re an advertising company and they do their best advertising for themselves. Their public image is a very carefully crafted one. I interviewed with them years ago and they are very fake, Disneyland type fake. It was clear that things were very deliberately set up in a way to make a particular impression. It wasn’t the obvious things like a company’s logo in the lobby is put there to make a deliberate impression that you’ve arrived at the correct company which is obvious and served a clear purpose but small things that aren’t meant to be noticed. Just one of many examples, I was waiting in a lobby for my next interview. It was a fairly standard corporate lobby except I look to my right and there’s this purple, Dr Seuss looking phone. Something you’d find in a toy store. The initial impression was, “oh those kooky Google engineers. One of them must have thought this would be cute and brought it in”. It looked like it had never been touched and probably hadn’t. The thing is if you went to another building you’d find the same stupid purple phone. Someone from HR went out and probably bought a dozen of these things and spread them about.
That wasn’t the only thing. That kind of crap was everywhere if you looked for it and I’m willing to bet that kind of crap and thinking went all the way to the top.
I read this on HN a while ago and it's something more people should read. I think the term "tech company" is very subjective so I won't touch that, but Google is absolutely an advertising company with a bunch of side projects (hence why they always end up getting killed after a few years). It doesn't change my feeling towards google, but it helps understand them and know what to expect from them. Your kooky phone anecdote is a great example.
Missing context much? I'm a vocal advocate for changing the interview process to make it more rational and actually data-driven. And I refuse to conduct the coding panels. I absolutely will not participate in that, and I rip our internal coding question bank to shreds regularly for its ritualistic hazing quality.
White people are underrepresented at Google in the US, if you go by general demographics [1] [2]. This is probably not the best way to think about it, as there are many other variables, but it's also not at all compatible with "Google only hires white dudes".
There's a real problem with diversity in the tech industry, from FAANG on down. But it's not a one-sided problem--it's not just ignorant or evil, cruel, racist white straight men. They have the lion's share of the power, and so they get deservedly more scrutiny. But there's a growing, insidious "callout culture" that is just as cancerous, and growing.
And now I'm a bit over the "it's okay to be a confrontational asshole as long as I'm calling it being assertive/justly indignant/fighting for social justice while complaining that people treat me worse because I'm not white" shtick.
Sometimes it's justly and righteously asserting yourself, or fighting against racism, sexism, or homophobia. Sometimes it's just being a contrary asshole and hiding behind these social issues as cover for acting like an asshole. And it's okay to not like people who do that. These tweets scream that there is more to the story that isn't being told, and likely never will be.
do you mean asian? They're ~5% of the US population and ~42% of google's population according to the other user's link. Meanwhile blacks, hispanics, and whites have significant underrepresentation
When your management chain 3 levels deep are Indian males and most English on the team is spoken in broken Chinese accents you know white males are totally overrepresented. /s
> When your management chain 3 levels deep are Indian males and most English on the team is spoken in broken Chinese accents you know white males are totally overrepresented. /s
Just because they are overrepresented doesn't mean that they are the only, or proportionately most, overrepresented (though I do think you point out an important factor in toxic white attitudes in tech; the fact that there are non-Whites that are also, and possibly more , overrepresented in tech, including tech leadership, than Whites makes those Whites who are inculturated to be prone to racial insecurity particularly insecure.)
The beauty of the reasoning in your comment is that you can apply it to literally any white person who doesn’t fall in line with the narrative that whites are an oppressive, racist majority in tech.
It’s possible for that to be true in a global or more high level context, e.g., “the tech industry as a whole,” and at the same time be far from the truth, say, at Google. And it’s reasonable and appropriate—and not at all a sign of white insecurity—to point that out.
For my part, the worst sort of person in this discussion is the white person who puts on a facade of wokeness or racial sensitivity without admitting the possibility that the world isn’t, as it were, black and white.
Your comment kind of made sense until you bolted on a parathetical tangent to the statement.
Is over-representation something that should be combated in all cases or only if the over-represented group is labeled by the woke as "white"? Can or can't you be racist to someone who is "white"? Does this apply universally or only in the western hemisphere. Are the Chinese "white"? Only in China perhaps? What about the Uyghurs or the Jews are they "white"? What about in China or Israel?
> Facebook Inc and Alphabet Inc.’s Google agreed to “cooperate and assist one another” if they ever faced an investigation into their pact to work together in online advertising
It was obvious they'll team considering their whole online advertising business is at a risk to lose revenue.
It is also an interesting question to ask, why Microsoft with Bing search and ads platform does not vigorously compete with Google worldwide, but keeping a stable position in the US.
Anyways the accusation from the article is shocking. But it may also explain why Facebook at some point stopped expansion of third site ads to only visitors that logged in into an app on such sites rather than chasings all users.
Combined with latest articles about how Google supposably considers open web as an opponent for their app system, it is just worrying if the web is still safe with domination of these tech giants.
> Combined with latest articles about how Google supposably considers open web as an opponent for their app system, it is just worrying if the web is still safe with domination of these tech giants.
This sounds like Apple. I mean, Google is pro web precisely because it translates positively to their bottom line. Android is a stop gap that is highly effective too. So web or mobile, they are fine.
...because it is actually of some use. Most people would miss Google Maps if it went away, and Android wouldn't have given ios competition if Google hadn't backed it. YouTube would have been shut down by lawsuits if Google hadn't bought it.
Whereas if Facebook went away...uh, I don't really see any problem.
Larry Page was the CEO of Alphabet until the end of 2019. He owns over 40 million shares.
Sergey Brin was the President of Alphabet until the end of 2019. He owns ~39 million shares.
The actions of Google from inception until 2019 are the personal responsibility of these two men. They are both "retired" as of today but still have an extreme amount of influence on the company.
This type of monopolistic behavior will not stop until the people who are personally responsible for corporate behavior are held personally liable.
Can I get my pitchfork out if I don't care about working at a FAANG? Because we can go back and forth with "you're just butthurt you didn't get in" "you would say that, you're a FAANG employee" all day long.
Our society has turned into a competition between different organizations and communities to out-bribe and out-corrupt each other... I think it's a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
This trustless, lawless environment is ideal for cryptocurrencies.
That's one way in which crypto is different from every other asset. The ownership relies on cryptography, not law.
Legal ownership is one of the a weakest forms of ownership. A step above that is physical ownership (e.g. gold stored in a secret vault). Cryptographic ownership is even stronger than physical ownership because nobody can take it away from you unless you tell them that you own the thing to begin with and then you willingly give them the passphrase or transfer the tokens.
Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google agreed to “cooperate and assist one another” if they ever faced an investigation into their pact to work together in online advertising, according to an unredacted version of a lawsuit filed by 10 states against Google last week.
The suit, as filed, cites internal company documents that were heavily redacted. The Wall Street Journal reviewed part of a recent draft version of the suit without redactions, which elaborated on findings and allegations in the court documents.
Ten Republican attorneys general, led by Texas, are alleging that the two companies cut a deal in September 2018 in which Facebook agreed not to compete with Google’s online advertising tools in return for special treatment when it used them.
Google used language from “Star Wars” as a code name for the deal, according to the lawsuit, which redacted the actual name. The draft version of the suit says it was known as “Jedi Blue.”
The lawsuit itself said Google and Facebook were aware that their agreement could trigger antitrust investigations and discussed how to deal with them, in a passage that is followed by significant redactions.
The draft version spells out some of the contract’s provisions, which state that the companies will “cooperate and assist each other in responding to any Antitrust Action” and “promptly and fully inform the Other Party of any Governmental Communication Related to the Agreement.”
In the companies’ contract, “the word [REDACTED] is mentioned no fewer than 20 times,” the lawsuit says. The unredacted draft fills in the word: Antitrust.
A Google spokesperson said such agreements over antitrust threats are extremely common.
The states’ “claims are inaccurate. We don’t manipulate the auction,” the spokesperson said, adding that the deal wasn’t secret and that Facebook participates in other ad auctions. “There’s nothing exclusive about [Facebook’s] involvement and they don’t receive data that is not similarly made available to other buyers.”
The redacted lawsuit filed last week makes no mention of Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. According to the draft version, Ms. Sandberg signed the deal with Google. The draft version also cites an email where she told CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives: “This is a big deal strategically.”
Like Google, Facebook has also disputed the allegations in the lawsuit, saying its agreements for bidding on advertising promote choice and create clear benefits for advertisers, publishers and small businesses.
“Any allegation that this harms competition or any suggestion of misconduct on the part of Facebook is baseless,” a Facebook spokesperson said.
The final version of the lawsuit didn’t make public details about the deal’s value. The draft states that starting in the deal’s fourth year, Facebook is locked into spending a minimum of $500 million annually in Google-run ad auctions. “Facebook is to win a fixed percent of those auctions,” the draft version says. The lawsuit says “Facebook is to [REDACTED].”
According to the draft version, an internal Facebook document described the deal as “relatively cheap” when compared with direct competition, while a Google presentation said if the company couldn’t “avoid competing with” Facebook, it would collaborate to “build a moat.” The redacted lawsuit filed last week doesn’t include those quotes.
The lawsuit alleges that Google executives worried ahead of the deal about competition from Facebook as well as others deploying “header bidding,” a technique for buying and selling online ads.
In an internal Google presentation from October 2016, an employee expressed concern about the potential for competition from Facebook and other big tech companies, saying, “to stop these guys from doing HB [header bidding] we probably need to consider something more aggressive,” according to the draft.
The redacted lawsuit discusses Google’s concerns about competition and mentions the presentation, but it doesn’t include the quote.
According to an internal Google communication from November 2017 discussing a potential “Facebook Partnership” for Google’s “Top Partner Council,” Google said that its endgame was to “collaborate when necessary to maintain status quo…” The redacted lawsuit describes a presentation about Google’s endgame, but doesn’t include the quotes.
As the two sides neared agreement, according to the draft, Facebook’s negotiating team sent an email to Mr. Zuckerberg, saying the company faced options: “invest hundreds more engineers” and spend billions of dollars to lock up inventory, exit the business, or do the deal with Google. Mr. Zuckerberg wanted to meet before making a decision, according to the draft.
Those details don’t appear in the lawsuit filed last week, which only names Mr. Zuckerberg once, in a separate paragraph about another internal communication about the deal.
For years, criticism of Google’s online advertising empire has focused on how the company leveraged its powerful consumer-facing platforms, such as Google Search and YouTube, to take over another lucrative but less visible business: the software that acts as a middleman for buying and selling ads across the web.
The Facebook allegations add a new wrinkle—that Google cut a deal with a competing middleman, one that the states describe as Google’s “largest potential competitive threat.”
They also represent a potent legal risk. Under U.S. law, agreements to fix prices can be easier to prove than the states’ other accusations—namely that Google is maintaining an illegal monopoly.
In addition to the suit filed in Texas, Google was hit last week in a separate antitrust lawsuit joined by 38 attorneys general, which alleged that it maintained monopoly power over the internet-search market through anticompetitive contracts and conduct.
Google has also disputed the contentions in that suit, as well as a previous lawsuit filed by the Justice Department on Oct. 20 over alleged monopoly practices.
In the companies’ contract, “the word [REDACTED] is mentioned no fewer than 20 times,” the lawsuit says. The unredacted draft fills in the word: Antitrust.
Amazing arrogance - so powerful and they will do whatever they like to keep and extend their position (hmm, trumpy behaviour)
>>A Google spokesperson said such agreements over antitrust threats are extremely common.
Sure they are, when you are knowingly doing such shady activities, bit like pre-nuptials. Or more like how non-disclosure agreements can be used to stop whistleblowers.
Silly question based on every other comment; value judgments aside, isn't teaming up with a competitor in the same market (ads) for legal assistance serve more of a proof that they don't have a monopoly (there's a competitor viable enough to team up with!), than that they have one?
Yeah it's not so much sponsorship (see other reply on donations) as "affinity". GOOG/FB employees lean D, and R's have historical beef (e.g. Google could have stopped the whole "santorum" thing). R's are still upset about that [reliably comes up in my meetings w/ R staffers] and the perceived "suppression" of conservative speech.
The cynicism is justified, but the second clause of the sentence should be, "when the consumer harm standard is the driving force behind antitrust enforcement." Unless the new brandeisians/"hipster antitrust" people pull some kind of Jedi mind trick that carries a case all the way to SCOTUS, we are all out of luck. It is difficult to overturn 30 years of case law.
The Democratic Party has a lot less interest in tolerating big tech than they have in the past. I'm cautiously optimistic Biden won't make the same mistakes Obama did here. But we'll see.
I wish I had your optimism. Based on his cabinet choices so far, this is going to be another corrupt organization filled with corporate types whose misdeeds will never get talked about in the mainstream media. Obama II. W Bush III. Same shitpile that pissed people off enough to make them vote Trump.
There are definitely upsides and downsides in his choices. Biden was very far from my first choice for President, but I am hopeful he'll have learned from at least a few of Obama's mistakes, and of course, I think the next four years will probably just straight up be quieter than the last four, which should help restore confidence in our economy and the country.
We don't have time for four-years of hanging out. The election was close, the Sky is Literally Melting and Biden is already setting up for a loss in two years.
Who exactly are the appointees you are upset about? Also Trump grifted the whole thing.. I am surprised "drain the swamp" is still an effective slogan and believed.
Same here, but I wonder if Biden's pushback won't be more like mid-90's tech opposition (Piracy! Pornography! "You wouldn't encrypt a car, would you?"). We'll see what kind of hamfisted weirdness shows up in a compromise 230 bill in the next Congress.
Section 230 is going to die one way or another. Tech companies want you to believe it's an Internet apocalypse, but realistically, it means when someone sues a tech company, they are going to have to defend themselves on the merits of the case instead of using a "get out of jail free" card. Facebook, Google, and Twitter will need slightly more lawyers, and the rest of the Internet will get along just fine with "doing the best we can".
Pornhub will survive 2020. And it's an example of what removing Section 230 protection can do, absolutely, since SESTA/FOSTA exempted child sexual exploitation from 230 protection. Pornhub now only accepting verified uploads from professional studios and performers will not end porn. And in fact, without the ability for anonymous uploaders to post pirated premium porn, adult performers are going to make more money than they ever have before. Piracy has been hurting pornography just as much as it's hurt every other type of content, perhaps even moreso.
Yeah, the wild west of the Internet is over. Governments know how it works and how it can impact them. Businesses have massive influence over how it operates and evolves. And the Internet isn't just "out in space", it exists as real equipment in real sovereign countries, and that will continue to apply more to how the Internet works over time.
I don't think that's bad for the Internet. With regulation comes protection for people who might be otherwise harmed by others online. And it highlights the need to continue to push for global individual freedom: As we push towards open communication and human rights, the Internet as a whole will reflect that.
