amznVibe
msg:3245582 | 7:25 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Wait, what? This is from the head of the company that censored itself for China? Is this a "somebody please stop us from becoming (more) evil" plea? No one made them do business in China - they should have said, no we won't censor. They also seem to censor their maps worldwide at the drop of a hat too. [edited by: amznVibe at 7:27 pm (utc) on Feb. 7, 2007]
|
hannamyluv
msg:3245656 | 9:02 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| but only if attempts to reign it in are unsuccessful |
|
"... But we will help reign it in if it makes us an extra buck."
|
AhmedF
msg:3245680 | 9:36 pm on Feb 7, 2007 (gmt 0) |
The actual point by the parent poster / Google is very valid. If you are going to whine about a company taking a hypocritical view, you may whine about every single F500 company.
|
coldfused
msg:3245899 | 1:26 am on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
All Google is trying to say/do is to keep the internet as free as possible, for as long as possible, so they can make as much money as possible. Let's not fool ourselves. I'm sure somewhere down the line some positive things will come if enough big companies "fight the good fight", but again there is always, always, an underlining motive behind everthing.
|
kaled
msg:3245900 | 1:28 am on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| They also seem to censor their maps worldwide at the drop of a hat too. |
|
There were security concerns when Google maps first appeared. In the current terrorist climate, many governments were unhappy about military bases, airports, etc. being included. I presume those concerns have been largely addressed by now, but having just checked, I see that high-definition satellite images of Heathrow Airport are available - personally, I don't think they should be. Kaled.
|
fraudcop
msg:3245916 | 1:52 am on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Google has only created a cast of inamovible sites (one with about 200 million urls listed) clogging the entire web and taking all the web resources away from the others and so killing any possibility of alternance .
|
walkman
msg:3245951 | 2:52 am on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I know it sounds ironic, but they had no choice, in China especially since other companies have already bowed to China. Life is not fair. [edited by: walkman at 2:58 am (utc) on Feb. 8, 2007]
|
BillyS
msg:3245953 | 2:56 am on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Isn't this the same company that wants the word Google only to be used certain ways?
|
Rlilly
msg:3246714 | 7:39 pm on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Freedom would be allowing the "FAIR USE" of a trademark in Adwords when a the trademark owner has a brand name monopoly. Google policy by proxy is supporting the anti-competitive nature of these large corportations by taking there money and hidding valuable ads from viewers. It is prepostourous that Google and Yahoo do not allow you to say "compatible with .....", "compare to ....", "Same size as...", "equivelant of ..." when in fact the product you are advertising is that exactly but not allowed to.
|
hannamyluv
msg:3246801 | 9:16 pm on Feb 8, 2007 (gmt 0) |
| you may whine about every single F500 company |
|
Let's be honest. How often do F500 companies chide the world for their behaviors and forcast doom and gloom while helping to contribute to it? It's like the CEO of Exxon telling a group of people how oil will bring us all down. They can do what they did in China, it is their preogative as a company. But please spare me the "white knight" routine. If they were so concerned about it than they should not have helped contribute to the problem. Otherwise, they need to keep their mouth shut on the subject.
|
|
