Google shareholders say "Go right ahead, be evil."

http://jwz.livejournal.com/761788.html

by abstractbill • 19 years ago

12 42 19 years ago

jwz.livejournal.com

gibsonf19• 19 years ago

Damn, it is scary that they didn't accept those obvious guidelines. Google is being evil after all - not a good thing for those fighting for freedom in unfree countries where Google operates. Hopefully this breach will generate enough bad publicity for Google that they will reconsider.

paul5• 19 years ago

In which countries do you think that would have allowed them to operate?

Unfortunately, all countries have problems and this isn't as black and white as the link seems to imply.

gibsonf19• 19 years ago

How can they justify operating in a country like China where their technology is used directly to target political activists? I see no possible excuse for this. They are providing the most efficient and effective censorship and political targeting software ever created.

Goladus2• 19 years ago

http://headrush.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/06/dumbgroups2.jpg

Sersiouly though, it's a complicated issue and the suggestion to reject the proposal may simply be because it needs revision.

gibsonf19• 19 years ago

If that were the case, why didn't they mention that, in principle, the proposal was good but needed to be revised which is why they recommended voting it down in its current form?

Goladus2• 19 years ago

If it were me, it would be to avoid clutter and confusion, as there are only two possible ways to vote.

But that's just a guess.

startupper• 19 years ago

What happened here?

"Schmidt and founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin together hold 66.2 percent of Google's total shareholder voting power, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing. All three are members of the board of directors, which has recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal at the company's annual meeting on May 10."

ecuzzillo• 19 years ago

If I were Larry/Sergei/Schmidt, I'd vote against it too, just because I get annoyed when random shareholders try to tell me what to do with my company. When I first read this in a different context, it was worded so that the shareholders who weren't otherwise involved in the company brought up this proposal to force the company to do this stuff. IMO, even if I were going to follow the general intent of the proposal, I wouldn't want these random people who bought a bunch of stock to start snooping over my shoulder all the time.

Furthermore, the measure seems likely to prevent the governments of said countries from allowing Google into them at all. It is debatable whether having a censored Google or no Google is better for oppressed peoples.

gibsonf19• 19 years ago

A censored google targeting political activists does nothing good for the oppressed people. It only makes ad revenues for Google while helping the opressing government pull the wool over their subject's eyes and jail and/or kill their political enemies.

Tichy• 19 years ago

While I assume that Google is evil, I am not sure that accepting censorship is actually evil. The alternative would be that Google would not be available at all in China. On the other hand chinese internet surfers are probably aware of the censorship anyway. I think Google acts just like a company trying to do it's job within the constraints of the environment.

pg3• 19 years ago

You guys are still arguing about this after two days? There ought to be a variant of Parkinson's Law about how much easier it is to argue about politics than other matters. It's like a ground state one sinks into. Individuals and sites...

dfranke• 19 years ago

I've never heard of those, and the last time I tried to edit an OS X keymap I gave up in frustration, but for HTML, a workaround is to type '

pg3• 19 years ago

Thanks, I used your suggestion to get apostrophes, which is why it will seem incomprehensible to anyone reading it later.

Google shareholders say "Go right ahead, be evil."

Related Stories