-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Oh yeah... It's probably just a persons problem.. probably related to
ego and such...
What could be wrong with the not-do-evil Google?
- - the fact that they bent to entertainment industry and were the first
to accept privatized, automated policing/sanctioning scheme on their
platforms, thus opening the door to industry requesting private
censorship everywhere?
- - their acceptance of paid-peering deals with major telcos operators,
opening the door to these priority deals breaching Net neutrality?
- - real name policy and repeated attacks of E.Schmidt against anonymity
(so ironical when you know how secretive is the guy and the
decision-making process at the top of G)?
- - change of their licence to explictly merge all data into a single
profile (which they said a few years before they would never do?)
- - the fact that they became a US military contractant by acquiring
killer robots with Boston Dynamics?
- - their cooperation with the State department?
- - their transformation of users into proprietary drones through the
use of locked-down implants (glasses)?
- - Their investments in strategic portfolios in the domains of biotech
and transportation?
- - Their active cooperation with PRISM and other programs of the NSA?
No really, I don't see why Google bypassing the fundamental right to a
fair trial, implementing automated private censorship, attacking
anonymity, participating in massive breaches of privacy, leading the
trend of anti-net neutrality deals, turning users into drones, and
expanding to strategic fields while acquiring killer robots would be a
problem to anyone.
j
On Sunday 11 May 2014 01:57 PM, Geert Lovink wrote:
> Dear nettimers,
>
> I know, there are tons of examples of this. I just want to know
> more what you think of it, in particular if you happen to live
> there, or come from the Bay Area.
>
> To me, it is somehow super clear that Facebook is evil. Not hard to
> understand. But Google? Why are tensions rising so high lately
> around them? Look at the tone of the Cory Doctorow blog post to
> Boing Boing… Don't get me wrong. But have they really gone down
> lately? In my humble view they are as evil as were a decade ago...
> What happened? Have we changed?
>
> Yours, Geert
>
> --
>
> Eric Schmidt, war crimes apologist and colossal hypocrite
>
> Cory Doctorow at 6:00 pm Wed, May 7, 2014
>
> Just a reminder that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is a colossal
> hypocrite and an apologist for war crimes:
>
> “Some people will cheer for the end of control that connectivity
> and data-rich environments engender. They are the people who
> believe that data wants to be free and that greater transparency in
> all things will bring about a more just, safe and free world. For a
> time, WikiLeaks' cofounder Julian Assange was the world's most
> visible ambassador for this cause, but supporters of WikiLeaks and
> the values it champions come in all stripes, including right-wing
> libertarians, far-left liberals and apolitical technology
> enthusiasts, While they don't always agree on tactics, to them,
> data permanence is a failsafe for society. Despite some of the
> known negative consequences of this movements (threats to
> individual security, ruined reputations and diplomatic chaos), some
> free-information activists believe the absence of a delete button
> ultimately strengthens humanity's progress toward greater equality,
> productivity and self-determination. We believe, however, that this
> is a dangerous model, especially given that there is always going
> to be someone with bad judgment who releases information that will
> get people killed. This is why governments have systems and
> valuable regulations in place that, while imperfect, should
> continue to govern who gets to make the decision about what is
> classified and what is not.”
>
> - Google CEO Eric Schmidt, on whistleblowers, from "The New Digital
> Age," written with Jared Cohen, another Googler.
>
> This is the man who said, "If you have something that you don't
> want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first
> place" (but flipped out when Cnet performed the most perfunctory of
> doxxings on him), but whose position, when it comes to leaks
> detailing everything from the indiscriminate killing of civilians
> to criminal mass-surveillance of whole nations (and massive
> cyberattacks on his own company) is that grownups know what they're
> doing and it's not up to the "far left," and "right wing
> libertarians" to publish the truth and hold powerful criminals to
> account.
>
> In short: if Google outs you through a "Real Names" policy on G+,
> maybe you just shouldn't be gay, or maybe you shouldn't be hiding
> that fact from your violent and intolerant neighbors. But if a
> whistleblower or a reporter outs an elected official for gross
> corruption and war crimes, she's an irresponsible child who's taken
> the law into her own hands and sh
