Google in China would have been a way for Google (and Western Democracies) to get the most current listing of what China is asking companies to filter.
Whatever China was not comfortable asking international companies to filter (it shows to others things that Chinese government is trying to control), would have been shown by google to Chinese users by default.
Question for the google engineers here objecting to filtered products in China...
Is the right to restrict right to the outcome of ones labor after it is sold universal? Who else would you grant the right to restrict the fruits of their labor from being used by you if they don't agree with you on something that may be important to them?
Can a coal miner ask the utility company to stop electrical service to the parents of a google engineer residing in heartland? If no, why not?
Why can't the baker deny decorating a cake a certain way against their will?
If you are asking for a ethical right to deny basic things (internet search is just about there as electricity, food, shelter, emergency care), just imagine if all the things you depend on came with similar exceptions that excluded you from using it.
I would have imagined lot of googlers taking objection to blatant content/speech suppression on YouTube. But they are completely fine if it is their ideology winning as a outcome of a said effort, no matter the ethics.
>How does that go against natural learning/discovery?
Territorial claims, artificially created and maintained at tax-payer expense.
Most patents are straight forward implementations that people would have come up with on their own.
Patent system gives first mover advantage to those filing the claim with patent office. They have started now to give preference to those who file first, over those who can show they invented it first. Goes to show the intention of the system, create an unnatural monetized system over what comes naturally to people... solving their problem with what they know and what they can learn and what they can come up with. If one person solves a problem and files a patent, then in the IntellectualProperty land grab, it doesn't matter how easy the solution was, that person is now entitled to ask for money from anyone else who faces the same problem.
The wheel, the canals, the sewer system, the river wheel it all spread without patent system.
The patent system should come up with a "senior year graduate" challenge. If the kids in final year of college in that field can come up with similar solution comparable to the patent filing, then the patent is invalidated for being obvious. Amazon 'one-click' wouldn't ever have become a patent with this, as it was obvious use of browser cookies.
True invention should be rewarded, not chance occurrence of you coming face to face with a problem before anyone else.
As a consumer, I am precisely buying the right to download from those content providers as fast as possible using my speed tier (10 Mbps or 1 Gbps). I am paying the ISP to get that data.
When I ship a package, post office doesn't get to charge the recipient of the package after charging the sender for the shipment?
Why would a Internet user buy ISP service if the users can't get the content from other users on the internet, be it content providers or other end users i.e. peer-to-peer?
I pay $70 for internet service precisely because I can watch youtube/netflix over my internet connection.
ISPs asking youtube/netflix to pay on top of that is ridiculous.
It is actually the ISPs who should be sharing revenue with content providers. Without that content, nobody will buy that high-bandwidth internet connection at high price point.
Netflix charges $11 per month for their service.
Comcast charges $70 per month for their service.
It is Comcast who should be paying the content providers that their customers use the most.
How many people got internet connection so that they can watch Netflix and YouTube?
If Netflix and YouTube stopped serving customers of an ISP, how many would stay with that ISP?
Would Comcast's services be in such demand if there was no services like Netflix or YouTube?
It is not that Netflix and YouTube are making Comcast spend more, but without Netflix and YouTube nobody will buy Comcast's high tier connections. Everybody will just use $15 10Mbps connection.
Plenty of people from all over the world would love to swap place with you. They can enjoy driving, you can go to using involuntary, non-motorized, commute.
Cars and mobility that it brought had been the revolution of the last century that increased the quality of life for billions of people.
I want my city to fully adopt cars, and may be smaller personal vehicles like a two-seats car. I want my city to stop chasing grandiose dreams of public transportation that is wasteful, ugly and demeaning to individual needs and liberation. I want my city to be spread out than be infested with ills of public commute.
People who want to treat other people as a herd instead of as an individual, support public transport or shall I say enjoy thrusting public transport on others.
"Why don't you take the train so that I can drive my Lamborghini after going to Dubai in a private place?" They ask.
No, thank you. I would rather enjoy my Toyoto Corolla with 220k miles on it.
File a defect log to the book of Genesis, assign it to original developer, the God himself.
Why are you surprised that humans are being humans?
Why can't you put trust into the fact that there are more people being good most of the time.
Internet tools should be like paper and pencil, opinionless. Pencil maker doesn't get to control what gets written by the pencil, a social media platform maker doesn't get to control what gets said on the platform. Only when legally required, the pencil may be seized; only when legally required a social media post be taken down.
If with the protection and power of USA we can't stand by the Freedom of Expression in the marketplace of ideas, we are doomed to get an authoritarian overlords.
This "I don't like this free and open internet" because my ideas are losing is very dangerous power grab.
I reject any and all violence. The law of the land must take its course.
This woman who talked about free speech and then committed this crime against YouTube has seriously set back the arguments people were making for Free Speech on Social Media.
I have given this a lot of thought in past couple of years.
Current situation:
A) A video could get demonetized because of following reasons:
1. An advertiser complained about it.
2. A user complained about it.
3. The system/AI flagged it inappropriate.
4. A human auditor found it inappropriate.
B) Media companies (print/television/online news & press) have targeted ad-tec companies like YouTube, Facebook and others. These companies have a new way to wage war against YouTube/Facebook: drum up "ads shown on objectionable content".
C) Groups with agenda trying to silence opposing viewpoints have a way to do so by reporting content as inappropriate.
D) Truly illegal, criminal content
E) Lack of powerful parental controls on content and on ads
Problem with current situation:
1. An advertiser finding a video objectionable for their ad doesn't mean every advertiser will find the content objectionable. E.g. an insurance company may not want to advertise on a video that glorifies extreme jumping over walls, building, but a helmet company or an action cam company would find it attractive market to advertise. When youtube demonetizes a video, it's demonetized period.
2. It is ridiculously easy to stop speech on social media by abusing the inappropriate content flag. Groups with agenda that have decent enough membership can run a very effective silencing campaign on social media by abusing the report-content button. Someone doesn't like some legal content, doesn't mean that they are allowed to take out that content from anyone else viewing it.
3. YouTube or Facebook doesn't have or offer a way fight the "ads shown on objectionable content" attacks. This is especially confusing given these are the tech giants we are talking about with the might of all the technology and AI powers they wield.
4. No human recourse for the content creator to plead their case.
5. Demonetizing political commentary is astonishing, given how much advertising CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and political print media gets.
6. Would it be OK if Conoco gas station stopped hybrid cars from refueling? Would it be OK if Conoco said why doesn't the hybrid car owner start her own oil well and oil refinery? Why is is acceptable for Google to delete accounts with thousands of subscribers? What if you had a Conoco points cards with hundreds of dollars on it? Isn't that equivalent to your channels membership that YouTube yanks away from you?
Solution:
1. Allow advertisers to select channels to advertise on. Advertisers opt-in to select channels.
2. Allow advertisers to select channels to specifically not advertise on. Advertisers opt-out of select channels.
3. Protect creators from harassment by targeted campaigns ran by people trying to de-platform or silence them. Embrace bubbles, let people opt out of certain tags e.g. if a user says I don't like meat preparation videos, then don't show it to them. But don't make it easy for people who don't like meat products to deplatform those who do. Fully embrace bubbles, let people know that they are in the bubbles of their chioce, enforce those bubbles and when people are ready to peek outside into another bubble that they get curious about, let them.
4. Apple can put people in front of their customers to serve them. Facebook/Google make enough money to have a customer facing team for their content creators. They have invested into hiring auditors but there is no recourse for creators. Channel being banned after having thousands of subscribers is akin to paypal locking your account with thousands of dollars in it.
5. Removing content should depend on legality (law of the land) of the content alone. Removal of account must be because of a lawful request from authorities.
6. "Demonetization" can't be blanket. Each advertiser is unique. One advertisers not liking content doesn't make it inappropriate for all advertisers. Protect creators from activist advertisers.
7. These are tech giants that we are talking about with the might of engineering and AI with them. Letting advertisers opt-in/opt-out of channels should be possible for them. The fact that they haven't done so insinuates that they like the power they wield by removing content they themselves don't like for whatever (monetary/ideological) reasons. They need to prove that they are can be trusted with this power. Conoco shouldn't be allowed to reject gas to a lawyer who is on her way to a courthouse for an EPA trial, Google shouldn't be allowed to remove accounts that it doesn't like, especially without recourse. A regulatory framework may be needed, as Zukerberg conceded recently.
8. Allow parents to whitelist channels for kids. Show videos to kids only after 1000+ views from parents who use parental controls. Allow parents to restrict the videos kids can see where parents set the video playlist and kids can pick only from that playlist. Parents can subscribe to a trusted playlist for kids e.g. from NPR or NASA or their local school, activity group or church. Absence of these tools shows YouTube willing to run videos on autoplay to maximize ads without much regards for age-appropriate parent-controlled safe video experience for kids. A parent should be able to say I don't want to see ads for Disney Cruise as they can't afford it.
9. Subscriber portability just like phone number portability from carrier to carrier. A content creator should be able to take his subscribers with her to a different service. The social network should show forwarding address to the subscribers when content creator leaves a platform for another. Bring real competition for social platforms.
Disclaimer: I pay for YouTube Red, I like the ad-free experience and am glad that the option exists where I can buy that experience. I don't make, never have, any money based on the social media ad platforms. I am a consumer of content, not a creator. As a paying consumer of content, I do want complete freedom in my ability to see any legal content that others have created without an arbitrary filter of policy/guideline/appropriateness that has no basis in law of the land. I should have the ability to apply the filters if I choose to do so, just like marketplace of ideas there should be a marketplace for filters (whitelist/blacklist).
I reject any and all violence. The law of the land must take its course.
This woman who talked about free speech and then committed this crime against YouTube has seriously set back the arguments people were making for Free Speech on Social Media.
I have given this a lot of thought in past couple of years.
Current situation:
A) A video could get demonetized because of following reasons:
1. An advertiser complained about it.
2. A user complained about it.
3. The system/AI flagged it inappropriate.
4. A human auditor found it inappropriate.
B) Media companies (print/television/online news & press) have targeted ad-tec companies like YouTube, Facebook and others. These companies have a new way to wage war against YouTube/Facebook: drum up "ads shown on objectionable content".
C) Groups with agenda trying to silence opposing viewpoints have a way to do so by reporting content as inappropriate.
D) Truly illegal, criminal content
E) Lack of powerful parental controls on content and on ads
Problem with current situation:
1. An advertiser finding a video objectionable for their ad doesn't mean every advertiser will find the content objectionable. E.g. an insurance company may not want to advertise on a video that glorifies extreme jumping over walls, building, but a helmet company or an action cam company would find it attractive market to advertise. When youtube demonetizes a video, it's demonetized period.
2. It is ridiculously easy to stop speech on social media by abusing the inappropriate content flag. Groups with agenda that have decent enough membership can run a very effective silencing campaign on social media by abusing the report-content button. Someone doesn't like some legal content, doesn't mean that they are allowed to take out that content from anyone else viewing it.
3. YouTube or Facebook doesn't have or offer a way fight the "ads shown on objectionable content" attacks. This is especially confusing given these are the tech giants we are talking about with the might of all the technology and AI powers they wield.
4. No human recourse for the content creator to plead their case.
5. Demonetizing political commentary is astonishing, given how much advertising CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and political print media gets.
6. Would it be OK if Conoco gas station stopped hybrid cars from refueling? Would it be OK if Conoco said why doesn't the hybrid car owner start her own oil well and oil refinery? Why is is acceptable for Google to delete accounts with thousands of subscribers? What if you had a Conoco points cards with hundreds of dollars on it? Isn't that equivalent to your channels membership that YouTube yanks away from you?
Solution:
1. Allow advertisers to select channels to advertise on. Advertisers opt-in to select channels.
2. Allow advertisers to select channels to specifically not advertise on. Advertisers opt-out of select channels.
3. Protect creators from harassment by targeted campaigns ran by people trying to de-platform or silence them. Embrace bubbles, let people opt out of certain tags e.g. if a user says I don't like meat preparation videos, then don't show it to them. But don't make it easy for people who don't like meat products to deplatform those who do.
4. Apple can put people in front of their customers to serve them. Facebook/Google make enough money to have a customer facing team for their content creators. They have invested into hiring auditors but there is no recourse for creators. Channel being banned after having thousands of subscribers is akin to paypal locking your account with thousands of dollars in it.
5. Removing content should depend on legality (law of the land) of the content alone. Removal of account must be because of a lawful request from authorities.
6. "Demonetization" can't be blanket. Each advertiser is unique. One advertisers not liking content doesn't make it inappropriate for all advertisers. Protect creators from activist advertisers.
7. These are tech giants that we are talking about with the might of engineering and AI with them. Letting advertisers opt-in/opt-out of channels should be possible for them. The fact that they haven't done so insinuates that they like the power they wield by removing content they themselves don't like for whatever (monetary/ideological) reasons. They need to prove that they are can be trusted with this power. Conoco shouldn't be allowed to reject gas to a lawyer who is on her way to a courthouse for an EPA trial, Google shouldn't be allowed to remove accounts that it doesn't like, especially without recourse. A regulatory framework may be needed, as Zukerberg conceded recently.
8. Allow parents to whitelist channels for kids. Show videos to kids only after 1000+ views from parents who use parental controls. Allow parents to restrict the videos kids can see where parents set the video playlist and kids can pick only from that playlist. Parents can subscribe to a trusted playlist for kids e.g. from NPR or NASA or their local school, activity group or church. Absence of these tools shows YouTube willing to run videos on autoplay to maximize ads without much regards for age-appropriate parent-controlled safe video experience for kids. A parent should be able to say I don't want to see ads for Disney Cruise as they can't afford it.
9. Subscriber portability just like phone number portability from carrier to carrier. A content creator should be able to take his subscribers with her to a different service. The social network should show forwarding address to the subscribers when content creator leaves a platform for another. Bring real competition for social platforms.
Disclaimer: I pay for YouTube Red, I like the ad-free experience and am glad that the option exists where I can buy that experience. I don't make, never have, any money based on the social media ad platforms. I am a consumer of content, not a creator. As a paying consumer of content, I do want complete freedom in my ability to see any legal content that others have created without an arbitrary filter of policy/guideline/appropriateness that has no basis in law of the land. I should have the ability to apply the filters if I choose to do so, just like marketplace of ideas there should be a marketplace for filters (whitelist/blacklist).
Let the law enforcement should take paper and pencil away from you when they arrest you or jail you.
Facebook is trying to be a pencil, a tool that anyone can find and use, while having an opinion about who uses it and how they use it, while being in the wild i.e. after the pencil is sold.
You can either be a pencil, or have an opinion. Choose one.
Am I the only one who thinks that Facebook is trying to be two mutually incompatible things at the same time? How can they not see this themselves?
Does he not realize that US Supreme Court considers hate speech as legal speech?
Can the gods of tech universe please come back to ground and realize that it is the US Constitution and the might of the US people enforcing US laws including patents and copyrights, that has been guaranteeing the safety of their creations so far?
How about some gratitude and nod for freedoms offered in USA on the platforms they created?
I don't like Facebook either, but I actually very much like the part where they want to let people talk knowing fully well that what gets said would range from Nobel Peace prize worthy, to undesired, to wanting to burn the whole universe down.
Can you imagine Bic worrying like this about what someone might write using their pens?
Do you imagine the restaurant worker who served breakfast to the 9/11 hijackers having second thoughts about serving food?
Answer to Facebook's woes is to return to Free Speech with compliance with law enforcement if laws are broken. No proactive banning of speech with the fear that it might be illegal. Let the legal process enforce laws, Facebook should comply with lawful orders to take down content, but not before. Facebook should embrace bubbles. Let people chose the bubbles they live in and let advertisers choose bubbles that they advertise in. If a advertiser doesn't want to advertise in "self-defense" bubble, then any content tagged/identified/categorized as "self-defense" doesn't get ads from that advertiser. Make people explicitly aware that there are bubbles out there that they can choose to be part of, or choose to be excluded from, or choose to peek inside for just a bit. Make default no-login/under-age view safe i.e. at least 1k logged-in views where at least 20 people did not raise "inappropriate content" flag.
Free Speech, embrace bubbles, comply with law enforcement and that should make Facebook relevant again.
Whatever China was not comfortable asking international companies to filter (it shows to others things that Chinese government is trying to control), would have been shown by google to Chinese users by default.
Question for the google engineers here objecting to filtered products in China... Is the right to restrict right to the outcome of ones labor after it is sold universal? Who else would you grant the right to restrict the fruits of their labor from being used by you if they don't agree with you on something that may be important to them?
Can a coal miner ask the utility company to stop electrical service to the parents of a google engineer residing in heartland? If no, why not?
Why can't the baker deny decorating a cake a certain way against their will?
If you are asking for a ethical right to deny basic things (internet search is just about there as electricity, food, shelter, emergency care), just imagine if all the things you depend on came with similar exceptions that excluded you from using it.
I would have imagined lot of googlers taking objection to blatant content/speech suppression on YouTube. But they are completely fine if it is their ideology winning as a outcome of a said effort, no matter the ethics.