Google vs. Evil 1123
wideangle writes "'The world's biggest, best-loved search engine owes its success to supreme technology and a simple rule: Don't be evil. Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business. Take Brin's decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin's morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It's a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public.'"
It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Pornography does not.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Porn is religiously 'evil', whereas cigarettes aren't.
Go figure.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking, or other destructive behavior, is disrespect and defilement.
Here [bible.ca] are some other references and reasons.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
1 Corinthians 6:19 - Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
What most people forget is the verse before that which states:
1 Corinthians 6:18 - Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
Which clearly states that the verse following it refers ONLY to sexual sins, not smoking/drinking/drugs/etc.
Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Some minor corrections...
The real story isn't exactly "family values", but that's the point. It's about how David screwed up big time.
The actual story's in II Samuel 11-12:
God does forgive David when David sincerely repents, but He still makes David deal with the (pretty nasty) consequences of this whole episode for the rest of his life (and explicitly forbids David from building a temple).
The point being that even someone in a position of authority isn't magically allowed to do what he wants with people.
Moral Authority (Score:4, Interesting)
I know I am going to get killed for saying this... but here we go...
Who decides what is effectively the moral authority. In my personal opinion the only reason the bible exists and other "moral authorities" exist is because people don't want to take it upon themselves to make the hard decisions as to what is right and what is wrong. If a person can blame his decisions on a book, person, church, etc. that's even better, because he never has to take it upon himself to accept when what he did is actually wrong.
Well, here's the reality check people... Let's remove everything that you need to have "faith" in to believe, and reduce it to what the real world is. There is no more afterlife, there is no more God, nothing, let's say all of that is wrong (not saying I believe that.) What do we have... well, we have the world as you experience it right now. Your decisions are judged almost solely by you, if you feel bad after doing something, that is because you feel it is wrong, not because some book tells you so. If you don't feel bad, then you don't feel it's wrong... Wow, simple, eh?
Now, how's this for a reality check. You do something, then you evaluate the "morality" of it, based on what you feel is right or wrong. Now, if you feel guilty, than to you it is morally wrong (even though to someone else it may not be.)
Okay, so now we have a theory of morals that works with an individual, lets work with a group.
Now, let's say for example that a person feels killing is not morally wrong, yet overall the group disagrees. What happens, well the group will in someway punish the person who is harming the good of the group. Thus, the person will feel wrong about what he did because he knows he'll be punished. (this is for those people who need rewards and punishments to do things.)
So, what do we create. We create a "Moral Structure" in which the person need not be immediately punished to fear doing something that overall the group considers wrong... What is this... this sounds like religion... hey.. That's odd..
Something to ponder. (and by no means is this a complete thesis of my ideas... I'll probably write about it in my journal sometime.)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait...
If I had mod points, the parent comment would get all of them. Religious thinking and practice has given rise to Gandhi's and MLKs, as well as Jim Jones and the Spanish Inquisition. Nor does it have a monopoly on murderous tendancies... ask the victims of Stalin, citizens of Communist China, or the dead in Latin America from U.S. intervention, for that matter.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, people kill religious people!
(Why isn't that as funny as it was supposed to be?)
A Prayer (Score:5, Insightful)
Save us from your followers.
Amen.
(I'm a Christian, and I tend to think this is unfortunately very accurate.)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's not a license to kill, and if the religion itself isn't to blame for that, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Crusades are indeed being proposed. And what is the Pax Americana meme but a crusade in another name?
I'm serious. The meme is slowly being released into the wild now, amongst the believers -- Islam has to be reined in.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
No, it doesn't make sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who act un-Christianlike (i.e., crusaders) do not represent Christianity.
Re:It makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Au contraire, Mon Frere (Score:5, Informative)
And he was right. Smoking had religous overtones ( and overt purpose at times) to the natives of the Americas. It was a "heathen" practice. Haven't you ever heard of tobacco refered to as "Devil Weed"? The people who coined that term meant it literally.
When religion and science meet, and purport to *agree,* and agree with political agendas as well, a lot of bad science is often the result. Bad science *reporting* in the public media is *always* the result.
The antismoking movement has always been a quiet Holy War, and if you examine its history and look at the actual work done on modern studies you suddenly find that most of what you "know" about smoking, both its good and bad points, is, at best, highly misrepresented, and at worst, a lie.
As for porn it's only 'religiously evil', again, to those religions based on Judaism ( Christianity, Islam, etc.) simply because the main competeing cultures to Judea in "ancient times" *embraced* sex as a gift from the Gods. Common practice has it to vilify anything your "enemy" holds dear. So sex had to go.
Lucky us.
KFG
Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A young teenage girl got on the back of a motorcycle with a driver who'd (as near as anyone could tell, unbeknownst to her) been drinking. He crashed the motorcycle, I tried to hold her life inside her body, unsuccessfully, until the paramedics arrived. The image of the bones sticking out of her chest will haunt my dreams for the rest of my life, and I was not her mother or father.
A member of my family tried, repeatedly to kill himself. He never succeeded and now has a lovely 5 yr old daughter who dotes on him. Will you tell that daughter that her life would not have been effected had he succeeded?
Your statements, aside from being totally wrong, were hurtful. I urge you to think before you type in the future, and thank you for that consideration.
Seperate self-harm from other-harm (Score:4, Interesting)
Harming people is wrong, and should be illegal. Drinking is not an excuse.
The fact that suicide emotionally pains loved ones makes it cruel, but it should not be illegal. People should not be held legally liable for other people's emotional reactions, not even extremely intense ones. Your emotions are your own buisness.
Your suffering and theirs is regrettable and in some cases a crime requiring justice, but it does not trump a logical argument, and I will not shut up and knuckle under, merely because your feelings are fragile on the topic.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonetheless, people who are violent, or abusive, or irresponsible to the point of endangering other's lives (like drunk drivers) are the extremes, and they don't necessarily directly relate to alcohol. People can drive irresponsibly without any alcohol - it's a conscious decision. And people can consciously decide to get really drunk in a situation where they have to drive home. And people can be depressed and commit or attempt suicide without any drugs. These people ARE responsible for their acts and the fact that their acts may hurt others. That doesn't mean that alcohol or drugs should be illegal.
Despite the fact that my father was an alcoholic (and I should note, no longer is - he seems to be a fairly responsible person now, though I still unfortunately have essentially no relationship with him), I choose to drink sometimes. Sometimes I drink too much, even. Why? We humans need entertainment and enjoyment and socialization in our lives - drinking provides me with a social outlet, relaxation, and so on. I am always conscious of not drinking too often, afraid that I might have some genetic predisposition to alcoholism and wife-beating. And I never drink when I know I need to drive somewhere within several hours afterwards. Is it so hard to be careful not to hurt others? And do we have to blame violence on drugs and alcohol, and not on the people who choose to use them and let out their rage on others?
All I am suggesting is that the law should protect others from adverse consequences when reasonable. Drunk driving laws should be and ARE quite rigorously enforced in many locales. Unfortunately, some others don't seem to enforce them so seriously. Domestic violence laws exist - to protect people from situations like that. But domestic violence can and does exist independently from alcohol abuse. People drink too much because they are unhappy. Domestic violence is usually another symptom of unhappiness with life among the lower middle and lower classes, where it seems to be most prominent (not to say that it doesn't exist in all classes of society). Frankly, suicide is illegal too, though preventing it is quite difficult, again usually possible only by treating the underlying symptoms of depression and misery.
Let's not focus entirely on the symptoms. The causes of problems in our society can be better addressed by making sure that people don't get trapped in a cycle of misery - keep opportunities for economic advancement open, focus efforts on education of the young so people feel empowered in their lives, and treat depression and other mental illnesses early, before they spiral out of control. Just my reductionist two cents.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I see your point. I don't think it is the right point, though.
The basic idea seems to be that assigning blame solves problems.
If he kills 5 people, it's his fault. He was responsible for his actions. So what? The five people are still dead, and so now the guy should be punished. How does that solve the problem?
Another example: a lot of people bicker about whose "fault" 9/11 was. Was it our own fault? Maybe. Maybe not. What you have to say now is, "So what?". What we really should be asking is, "So now how do we make this problem go away?"
Re:It makes sense (Score:3, Flamebait)
The sex exploitation industry which produces it, however, is. Porn doesn't kill anyone? Wrong. VD is rampant amoung porn actors and actresses.
The entire porn industry--just like the recording industry, but far worse--makes money by exploiting the young and gullible. There is probably no more terrible legal industry.
Re:It makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
VD if you're lucky (Score:5, Insightful)
A girl starts in a strip club, then moves down the ladder from there, untill she's dealing with the vice squad on a regular basis.
Keep telling yourself you're putting her through college, but just know, that you're more than likely putting her into D.A.
Re:VD if you're lucky (Score:5, Interesting)
I know people who go to the University of Rochester and are strippers. Good people. People who I have more respect for than self-righteous moralizers like yourself. I know someone who's paying for college by stripping. By doing that, she's not being immoral or ruining her life. She made a personal decision: she doesn't want to be in a hundred thousand dollars debt when she gets out of college, thus she's doing something which is allowing her to pay the yearly tuition. Something which is perfectly legal and doesn't harm anyone else.
That doesn't make her immoral or some kind of slut. That makes her a responsible adult who's making her own decisions. So keep your nose on your face.
Re:It makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
is porn evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:is porn evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Every advance of man eventually gets adapted for two purposes: military and porn.
Not to mention their wacky gun policy. (Score:5, Interesting)
To be even stranger, the advertisements are usually not even about guns - just the company may happen to also sell parts.
One case comes to mind of an outdoorsman shop wanted to advertise its dehydrated food wares. In addition to hundreds of other outdoors materials, they sold replacement pistol barrels (they did NOT however, sell actual guns)
Google refused the ads on food on the premise of this.
Activism (Score:4, Insightful)
1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.
Kudos to them, then, for standing behind their beliefs.
Re:Activism (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool, everyone has an opinion.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
Ok, fine.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
Really? Just because Google wont carry their ads? How is that?
Time-Warner won't carry ads for porn sites but I belive those business are doing quite well and do not feel enticed to eliminate porn from thier business. They just find other ways to advertise that do not involve that company. Time-Warner's doesn't get their revenue but the do get to stick to their policy.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
Several problems with that theory. First is the assumption that if a company doesn't advertise on Google they can't do business. Advertising on Google is not such an important thing that it will determine if a gun parts business remains profitable.
Another problem with your theory is the fact that most guns are not used to kill people.
Assuming your theory were correct it would also mean that there were fewer parts available for guns to defend people.
Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.
Please rethink your theory.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.
Google still makes profit, that's a good thing. Standing up for what they believe in is a good thing. They set an example and that is a good thing.
But I think you overestimate their impact on society. Google is important, and they do have an impact. But if Google went away, or people use another service, it doesn't harm society. Despite what they may tell you they just aren't that important.
Re:Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be in their perogative (again, it's their world, we just play in it), but I don't think it'd have any useful effect -- what, is the Dome of the Rock going to suddenly go secular because they can't advertise on Google?
Look, I take great pleasure in going to the shooting range and exercising my second-amendment rights. I also don't kid myself about what I'm doing, what the purpose of the tools really is and why I enjoy it so much. Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul.
Re:Activism (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the Resistance in France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union really thought guns were helpful against the Nazis. The Viet Cong used them to good effect against the French, Japanese, Americans and Republic of Vietnam. In 1989 guns were quite helpful dealing with Nicolae Ceausescu.
Guns helped the SAS and Norwegian Resistance in stopping the Nazi heavy-water production.
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
"Ever
Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker."
Re:Activism (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. It took diplomats. Generals. Bombs, planes, tanks, ships, codebreakers, balloons, radar, submarines, atomic bombs.
Guns were an expression of resistance, but they would not have won WWII against a German or Japanese empire. It took the intelligent cooperation of tens of millions of soldiers with all the resources of dozens of nations to stomp out a few determinted, self-righteous, God-appointed we're-doing-it-for-self-defense looney bin countries that convinced themselves they were only doing the right thing by attacking everyone else preemptively.
No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom". They can fire a few rounds off before the tanks and armored soldiers roll over their families and houses, or before they see a cruise missle go down their chimney, or a tailored virus is released into their water supplies. The era of the brave lone warriors never existed. It doesn't exist now. It's a fantasy.
If the U.S. government goes rogue under some pretext (such as the terrorist one), and they start doing things like, oh, detaining people in the dark of night, or executing citizens without trial, and everyone goes "Yay! We are safe!", no pile of Uzis under our beds will buy us freedom.
Oh, um. If everyone carries a gun, or has one in the house, the first order of business for any robber or attacker is to kill the victim on sight. The attacker almost always wins if they have the gun out and hit you by surprise. I've heard in many cases that muggers, for instance, in highly armed neighborhoods will shoot the victim first off, because it's almost a certainty the victim is carrying blade or gun.
Do *I* want guns banned? I don't think they can be banned. It'd be worse than Prohibition, and at least booze drinkers weren't drinking a killing machine when the police broke in.
But I don't think the guns are going to save us from the bad man, or a government gone insane. Only careful monitoring of our guvmint can save us from the latter -- and we're not monitoring -- and as for the bad men, they will always be with us.
Re:Gun Policy? I didnt even realize there was one. (Score:3)
Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol doesn't kill people (Score:4, Funny)
Morality (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, the idea that porno (which may be offensive to our puritan ideas concerning sexuality, but not otherwise damaging) and cigs/liquor (which are undisputibly bad for you) is a little absurd.
Essentially, then, this is indicative of the fact that the person/people making the moral decisions in this case have thought carefully about their beliefs, rather than taking it (as too many Americans do) from bumper stickers.
Kudos to them.
Google win!!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is pretty hard fact that cigarettes and booze are evil as far as health is concerned. However, porn is evil only as much as ideology / morality flags it as evil.
Personally, I would legalise all kinds of drugs, however the advertising should remain limited.
And yes, call me funny, but I just love to pull my stick and can't possibly see how porn could be evil.
Re:I agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Porn has, and to some extent is, its own ideology; like other ideologies, it plugs a hole in the world with a fantasy version of the thing it's supposedly "about", in which everything works more or less exactly the way it doesn't in reality.
Religious fundamentalism is fantasy politics, in which real and intractable arguments about morality and justice get to be solved by looking them up in the user guide. Porno is fantasy gender politics, in which real and intractable difficulties in the matter of relations between the sexes get resolved...well, you know how.
This doesn't make porno evil as such; at least, not for the conventional reasons. But it does make it ethically deviant, insofar as ethical reasoning depends on a willingness to try to see the world as it is. Porno claims to present the naked truth: all the naughty secrets that the puritan sex cops want to keep secret and veiled. But porno is, like advertising, a kind of systematic untruth, perpetuated for cynical reasons, and whatever that is it ain't good.
Re:I agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, most of the posts here on Slashdot seem to be missing the point. It doesn't matter whether any of the above are evil under your idealogy. What does matter about Google is that despite the extra revenue it might provide, they've chosen to incorporate their moral beliefs into a business they've created. They have some beliefs that are higher than the mighty dollar. The submittor almost seems to question this, and insinuates a public businesses doesn't have this luxury, and the sum of its morality is return to shareholders. Frankly, that meme more evil than porn, alcohol, and cigarrettes combined. Once your values are completely based on financial return, the commission of some kind of crime (legal and/or moral) is pretty much inevitable, because there's just so many good ways to make money by screwing others over.
I personally think that porn can distort reality and hurt people and it's a substitute for things that could legitimately fill human needs/desires. I side with Bill Cosby's statement that it's more than a little word -- when you feel hungry, do you go and look at pictures of steak? Videos of people eating pizza? Carefully teasing you with glimpses of halibut, people making satisfied noises while in the throes of a sublime burritto? But my judgement of porn or substance abuse is not really the point of this whole discussion. If you built a business, and believed that porn was an evil, I'd hope that you'd incorporate that belief into the operation of the organization you create -- same goes with guns, marijuana, tobacco, bibles, scientology, Nietsche, Quake, Nethack, whatever. The guys running google have moral beliefs, and they're willing to stand for them despite financial incentives to the contrary. How can that be anything but good?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful (Score:5, Interesting)
If the fact that too much alcohol is can damage your health means that it is harmful then you might as well add food, oxygen, water, exercise, sexual orgasms, sunlight and sleep.
Too much of any good thing can and usually is a bad thing.
First porn on Yahoo!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alcohol and Cigarettes and harmful (Score:5, Funny)
Am I screwed up? Yes, but not because of porn.
if you want to filter.. (Score:5, Informative)
it's fun and geeky to play around too..
the free key allows up to 1000 searches/person per day using googleapi..
i experimented with it to filter out some linkfarm-sht-sites while looking for *cough*roms. happily the same authors linkfarm sites shared quite a bit of content(and linked to eachother of course)..
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Also, see the recent events in France where the politicians, when proposing laws against prostitution, were faced with the ultimatum from the hookers: "If you do that, we will tell everyone what you have done, with personal details and even how small your penis is."
I have no reason to believe that this kind of double morality would not be common everywhere else where it is pc to say that porn is bad.
Since google isn't publicly held... (Score:5, Interesting)
Specifically, on the issue of accepting ads for adult content, this is reasonable in the specific case of a search engine and especially in the case of google's AdWords mechanism, because the users who will see the ads for adult content, will only be those who are specifically searching for adult content. Google has been quite successful with their targeted advertising program, which makes it all the more valuable to it's niche advertisers such as adult content providers. So long as the ads are effectively targeted to users who are currently viewing search results containing sited having such content, ads for similar content shouldn't be an issue.
--CTH
Must publically held mean no morals? (Score:3, Interesting)
More and more as companies grow from small to large, they must sacrifice the moral visions of their founders and early years to always take on the next most profitable venture.
Paraphrased, "It is better for investors to give their money to the charity of their choice than for a company to do that for them."
Screw long term environmental projects and the better return and new (and better?) opportunities for the company. Go for the short term payoff. Screw long term employee productivity and how that can add to the bottom line. Go for hard working, miserable, short term employees. Go for CEO to avg wage ratios of over 400.
When Sergey Brin says no to meta-tags in 1999, that is controversial but visionary. When Sergey Brin says no to cigarette ads, that is controversial and offensive to the free market.
And we wonder how the CEO/CFO/board became so disconnected and downright corrupt?
It's Milton Friedman and this chain of logic, that begins by saying that public companies should have no morals other than make the most money in the quickest time.
Scr*w you Milt and your Nob Hill apartment.
Thank you Sergey Brin, and even, thank you Bill Gates (tenuous reach?): for creating companies that have definite personalities, and definite moral stances (though you and I may not agree with all of them.)
Google != Porn (Score:5, Funny)
Newsgroups and P2P are the geeks porn engines >:)
Re:Google != Porn (Score:4, Interesting)
Values (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting article nonetheless, and fairly balanced. Seems Brin is using something that's in short supply nowadays - common sense. And there is (surprise surprise) a reference to Slashdot as well. To all those who generally just read the article summary and start posting, do read the article this time - it's fairly long, but it's worth it.
Maybe I'm just jaded.. (Score:4, Funny)
Ever seen a porn ad on Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Other Search Engines (Score:5, Insightful)
What Google and investors in it should think about (Score:5, Insightful)
Google isn't successful because it's Google. It's successful because lots and lots of people like what it's doing now, the way it's doing it now. If you change too much of that in the search for profits you'll change the reason people prefer to use it, and they'll go somewhere else that does do what they prefer. And there goes the very source of your success and revenue: the users you attract.
If you want to invest in a successful company but think it needs to be changed significantly, ask yourself why you aren't investing in a successful company that already works the way you think it should. If that's because all the companies that work the way you think they should aren't successful, maybe it's what you think that should change, not what the successful company is.
Advertising not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to defend a logical morality? (Score:5, Insightful)
One group "gets" their morality from "God". They say all morals are determined by a supreme omnipotent being, and without him, there is no morality. In other words, you cannot be a moral person without God.
A second group of people (the group that the Google guys likely belong to) believe that morals are simply unwritten rules that govern interactions between people. If there was only one person on the planet, there would be no need for morality. Their morality is usually determined by reason and logic. For instance, it's wrong to kill people (most of the time) because a society with rampant murder has less ability to advance than a society with no murder.
Many morals overlap with laws, but that does not mean that all morals should be made into laws. Murder is both usually immoral and illegal, but cutting in a line is immoral and not illegal.
The reason not all morals should be laws is simple. Those people who belong to group #1 have morals that have no basis in logic or reason, and their sole support is a being for which they have no evidence exists, and have no support that the "moral" indeed came from this being. In other words, the 1st Amendment protects us from this... Thanks Founding Fathers!
If you belong to group #2, it's hard to come up with a reason that porn is immoral. For porn to be immoral there must be something immoral with sex... I suppose one could argue that rampant sex could spread disease and hurt a society in the long run... but I don't really see how that applies to porn.
The Reagan administration told the NSF to do a study on how porn hurts kids. After 4 years of research, the panel told the administration that it is not porn that hurts children, it is our societies illogical, irrational, and puritanical views on sex that hurts kids. Just as there is little alcoholism in countries where wine is served to children and it becomes a normal part of life, there would be no harm to children if sex was not so taboo. Oh, by the way, Reagan threw the study out and commissioned a PRIEST to redo it. Not surprisingly, the Priest said porn hurts kids... and his "study" took less than a month.
In summary, it is quite easy to defend group #2's "scientific morality"... while it is certainly not as absolute as group #1's, as it needs to change as new evidence appears, it is far more likely to be the right thing to do.
Moral dilemmas (Score:5, Insightful)
The PROOF that google is evil (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The PROOF that google is evil (Score:5, Funny)
Counting from the start of the alphabet, we can assign the letters of the name 'Google' the numbers:
G o o g l e
7 15 15 7 12 5
which, when added together, total 61.
Now, we can also assign numbers to the letters from their ascii codes, thus:
G o o g l e
71 111 111 103 108 101
which sum to 605.
Combining these two numerical representations of 'Google', we get 605 + 61 = 666!!!
Google is the devil!!!!
Cigs/Booze vs Pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, porn on the other hand, isn't a choice made at a certain age. Sex is a part of life. And while it can hurt you (STDs, Early Age Pregnancy, Child Support, etc.), it's not likely going to kill you. Sex is part of human instinct. Every species on the planet is born with the intuition to further itself through breeding. The only reason sex is considered "evil" in the mainstream is because of Religious Zealots who want you to think it's a sin.
It looks like it's just a case of choosing the lesser of two evils. If Google were to go public, I'd buy, porn or no porn. It'd just be a sound investment. I'm a big user of Google, as many other people are, I'm sure (well, those who change their default search from MSN to Google, anyway).
Should there be a GNU-Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
But a good search engine is such a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the internet- is it really wise to continue to depend on a company that makes no promises that tomorrow they won't start charging $100/month subscription to their service and patent-attack any competitors who get too successful?
Clearly my example, although possible, is far fetched. But I feel good using Gnu-Linux because RMS, Linus and others have promised, via the GPL, not to take it away. Can/should google or one of its competitors make a similar promise?
Re:Should there be a GNU-Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
They market these to companys for search engines just for their site, but obviously you could configure it however you please.
http://www.google.com/appliance/index.html
(Or click Search Solutions link on their main page)
Granted this isnt just the software, but it proves there is no need to rely on googles configuration or hardware if you dont want to.
Something to look into atleast
It's Google's decision (Score:3, Interesting)
(Myself, I wouldn't advertise sugary children's cereals, although I enjoy Sugar-Bombs, booze, smokes, and tasteful images of goats getting it on.)
I would care if Google were censoring or slanting search results.
(Yes, I'm aware they've removed certain links after being compelled by law suit; as i understand, Google's results also make it clear when that's happened.)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
My statement excludes Japanese porn, of course. I don't mind watching an attractive and nimble Asian lady take it from behind while partially wearing a Catholic school girl's uniform, I just hate the part when the octopus demon slithers on screen and takes a dump on her forehead. There is something very wrong with that.
Google, and corporate responsibility, (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also worth pointing out that they understand that their decisions implicate a world stage. Google isn't a mom and pop store on mainstreet, small town USA. They have a large chunk of the world looking at them, and understand that with that power, comes responsibility. I don't see any evidence that they have used that power irresponsably yet.
Evil is Just Fine for Google (Score:3, Funny)
Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400,000.
Search took 0.10 seconds.
Most disturbing aspect of the article (Score:5, Interesting)
However, what disturbs me most is the censorship they have put in or helped implement. I understand censoring out sites that are deemed racist in countries like Germany, France, and Switzerland. As it stated earlier in the article, they don't like sites that are "anti-" anything. Since racism is being anti-other races, this clearly falls under their aforementioned policy.
What I think is crap though is how they allegedly helped the Chinese goverment impose its censorship laws. While there is no explicit proof that they did, if they actually helped the government filter out sites regarding topics such as Falun Gong, I find this despicable. I think everyone would agree that repressing individual freedoms and liberty while forcing conformity to the government controlled way of thought would fall under the "evil" category that they so desperately try to avoid.
On the whole, I found this a very interesting article. I would love to see a technical interviw with Page discussing the page ranking algorithms, but sadly my geekly curiosity will likely never be fulfilled as too many people are dying to hear about those algorithms for a different reason.
Not censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at it this way: Google is just a directory that helps people find information. If your phone company suddenly decided to stop compiling and distributing Yellow Pages, would that be censorship of the businesses that used to advertise through it?
Censorship is blocking access to forms of expression. Refusing to promote something is not censorship. Likewise, under free speech everyone is at liberty to say what they want, but no one has a right to an audience.
If you think that Google's refusal to index certain sites amounts to censorship, would it still be censorship if Google shut up shop? What about all the sites that aren't in Google's index simply because GoogleBot hasn't crawled them? Are they censored?
I doubt that Google has the means of (really) censoring internet sites - as in blocking access - unlike the Chinese government.
Scientology Ads (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet they aren't considered "evil" under the Google-standard.
Censorship is Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Evil, says
Yes, you may quote me on that.
Slowdot.org? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well...atleast I will be able to read it again next week when it is duped.
Sigh,
Scott
Google and Decisions (Score:3, Interesting)
People, companies are not set up to fight ideological wars, no matter how justified. They are supposed to produce good products and market them fairly. They should adhere to standards about what type of characters they deal with and how their workers are treated to avoid being guilty of crimes themselves, but it is not their job to reform foreign governments or support political revolutions. They control their conduct, not others conduct. If China wants to block google that is China's business. If people don't want China to do that then raise the issue directly and fight, but don't try to use google as a way to sneak things in under the radar. They aren't a weapon in this battle, they are just a company doing their job, and it is not in their interest to invite conflict over ideological issues. So far the result has been quite impressive technically, and while I believe they should have made Europe do the filtering on their servers it's understandable that they don't want to antagonize their customers. Don't make google out to be something it's not. If you want to fight oppression than form or join a group for that purpose - that's not what business is for. They should not support the practice, but it is not their job to be activists.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Google's choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is a private company. They can make whatever assinite decisions they want to make. If they wanted to, they should be able to only hire white people over 6 feet ball with goatees. Their decision.
Is it absurd? Yes. Is it something Google should be prevented from doing? No.
They don't like guns, alcohol, and tobacco. Fine. It's their right not to have those kinds of ads on their site, or allow ads from companies which also make guns or gun parts. They like porn, so they put up ads for that.
I disagree, however, with someone elses characterization that geeks like porn. Geeks like free porn. I don't think most geeks -- especially the paranoid kind -- like porn you have to pay for with credit card, or porn that says its "free" but wants your credit-card number just to "make sure you're 21". I agree with that. I'm not going to pay for porn. I can find it for free using google images or news-groups; if I look hard enough, I can even find a few free porn websites. I also don't like porno-advertising pop-ups or banners, so I block them with my hosts. It'll be a cold day in hell before I pay $20/month to get something online that I could look at in real life for free.
Don't know if it's just their morals... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Scientology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply explained (Score:4, Funny)
Though tobacco users won't admit it, great academic minds will rarely agree with the concept of smoking.
However, find me a student who sees something wrong with porn...
Re:With all due respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:With all due respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Goodgles CEO can decide what they want to do and not do, and you get to decide if you aggree or not and use them or someone else.
The KKK websites are most likely run in a way that would favour linking to sites about similar topics and refuse to link to pages not about the topics they want and deem 'right'.
That is their choice.
Just like its my choice to not go to their website ever.
Take away googles freedom to make this choice, and you have also taken away your freedom to choose _not_ to view sites such as the KKK's or anyone elses.
That isnt something I want.
Re:With all due respect (Score:5, Funny)
This is about ads, not the index.
Your post sounds good at first, but upon deeper exploration you'll see that it's:
a.) Childish
b.) Poorly thought-out
c.) Discriminatory
d.) A disservice to Internet users
Re:With all due respect (Score:4, Interesting)
You say you can't trust someone for being honest? That's preposterous. Would you do business with a lying money whore?
I have long said that there is nothing worse than a lie, and I stand by it. If you're a racist, I'd rather know it than have you keep it secret. If you want me dead, let me know, then at least I can defend myself.
"Poorly though-out" is the definition of your comments. I choose to do business with people who are honest and stick to their guns. I may not agree with Howard Stern, et al., but at least they say what they think, and don't change to make more money.
The biggest issue I have with your post is actually one that most people overlook. You list "without religion" in your list of 'evil' traits. It's no secret that religion has nothing to do with morality. Atheists are no more 'evil' than priests, rabbis, or any other religious folk. Your statement is a prejudiced one, and one that I don't agree with. But again, I'm happier having heard it, because it lets me get a clearer picture of you and your mind. I can easily tell, by that statement alone, that you aren't my kind of person. I'm honest, I'm atheist, and I'm moralistic (The Pierce Code [geocities.com]). Deal with it. Religion isn't all it's cracked up to be, and your point isn't either.
Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Can I have her email address?
I surrender. (Score:3, Informative)
So, this is my last time (other ACs feel free) - hey everyone, SteweyGriffin [slashdot.org] is none other than ekrout [slashdot.org], a known troll who often contradicts his own statements in the same thread, whores fans to have a large pool of moderators who see him at a +? score, trolls and will undoubtedly sweep the trollback for the weekend (links under his other posts can be found, including his post that proudly shows his reply and moderation amounts - look here you fools [slashdot.org] (wow - never noticed that the sid for trolltalk was 31337... that's funny). Stop modding him up. Or don't, I don't care anymore. Color me impressed, I surrender.
Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
While i aggree in part with your post, there are things that just seem wrong from the way you projected your opinions.
Porn can be bad if it is used as a teacher.
Porn itself is not bad.
For example, porn as a teacher is bad for, among other reasons:
* It teaches that women arnt beautiful unless they have D +breast and/or implants, and that they need to shave their public hair to be attractive.
Both of those are quailitys i personally hate, and feel a woman should do to her body what SHE wants, not what she feels everyone else wants.
* It teaches that sex is over once the man has an oragasm, and that female oragams isnt importaint at all.
* It teaches that foreplay is only used as preperation for intercourse, not as a source of pleasure or as a equal part of love making.
* It teaches that you must be limited in the sexual acts you can do, namley only the things done in porn, and nothing else is OK.
So if a person learns about sex from porn, and nothing else, of _course_ they will be a horible lover.
Being a good lover requires learning about your partner, what they like, what they dont like, and responding to their needs while at the same time they are doing the same to you.
My question to you is, did you try to teach your wife yourself how to be a good lover as well?
If not, then its no wonder she is how she is, and you have no room to complain about it. TEACH HER!
If so, then I would question your teaching methods, your communication with her, or possibly her love (Read: concern) about you.
I have met women who were horible lovers, but I did my best to teach them otherwise, and in most cases did so very well.
But dont blame porn for teaching poor love making anymore than you should blame the internet or TV for being a poor babysitter.
That isnt what they are for at all. But that doesnt mean they dont have good uses and still have a place in the world.
Re:I will evaluate this from a lover's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NAMBLA (Score:5, Insightful)
Not much. It says more about you and your reasoning.
This is about ads and making choices about who to sell them to.
I don't see google actually blocking searches for booze,guns and tobacco, they just choose not to sell adspace to those industries.
They also index sites concerning rape, murder, war, hate crimes and a lot of other generally considered evils. But they don't sell ads for them.
Your argument is a logical fallacy and detrimental to the discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye =)
Re:Porn isn't really benign (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, as a liberal, I find the idea that I'm supposedly so weak-willed that I can't look at Bad Things without being "changed" against my will really offensive, or that anyone should have the right to change what I have access to under the pretense of acting in my interests.
Guess what? I have a mind of my own, just as the women who decide to do pornography do. Some of them do it because of their financial or social circumstances, some do it by choice. Neither the producers nor the consumers of pornographic material are doing something inherently wrong in interacting with the porno industry. There may be instances of wrongdoing, but they do not mean that every piece of porno is somehow terrible.
Re:Porn not considered harmful? (Score:3, Funny)
If you think that all women find it horrible on principles, then you are either a clueless virgin or worse, a clueless brainwashed monotheist