LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Complete CCNA, CCNP & Red Hat Certification Training Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-13-2018, 09:20 AM   #16
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,203
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysander666 View Post
How many of us have dumbphones?
I never got on board the smartphone bandwagon to begin with. I currently have the same crusty old 15 dumbphone I've had for maybe 4 or 5 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
I don't have a mobile of any kind. Why would I want to ring someone when I am out walking? If I do want to ring someone, I use my land line when I get home.
I can't stand the things, but succumbed to getting one back in 2007 due to family pressures ("we can never get hold of him!", etc).

I personally don't subscribe to or use any google services. I do use google maps at work from time to time, for work related purposes, but that's about it it.
 
Old 12-13-2018, 12:23 PM   #17
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 404
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Wouldn't it make more sense to be mad at China for censoring search engines in their country?
 
Old 12-13-2018, 12:32 PM   #18
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 2,597

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288
Yeah, but being mad at the Chinese is a dead end since they are totally indifferent to what anyone else thinks of them. They always were, right back to the beginnings of European contact.
 
Old 12-13-2018, 02:54 PM   #19
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,319

Rep: Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041
You maybe should have titled the thread "Google succumbs to censorship in China" or perhaps "As long as Google can have access to billions of people, then democratic principles go out the window.", or perhaps "censorship is fine by Google, as long as there's $$$ to be made."

I mean honestly, it just goes to show... money talks any language. What a joke on Google's part.
 
Old 12-13-2018, 03:01 PM   #20
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,089

Rep: Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112
Google is a corporation, it has shareholders. Thus, by US, and other, laws it is legally bound to do whatever it takes to increase profit. Iof killing children made a profit and Google could do it they would be obliged to do so by law.
 
Old 12-13-2018, 08:46 PM   #21
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 14,412
Blog Entries: 24

Rep: Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942Reputation: 3942
Quote:
Google is a corporation, it has shareholders. Thus, by US, and other, laws it is legally bound to do whatever it takes to increase profit. Iof killing children made a profit and Google could do it they would be obliged to do so by law.
A quibble.

There is no law that says corporations must make as much profit as possible. Indeed, up until 40 years ago or so, the first responsibility of a business was considered to be to the health and well-being of the business, the second to the shareholders. It was considered that the long-term health of the enterprise was more important than short-term gains.

The notion that the first responsibility of a business is to maximize short-term shareholder returns is a notion spread by the "Chicago school" of economists, but by now it has so penetrated the discourse that many persons accept it as if Adam Smith himself had said it.

In my opinion, the Chicago school has spawned a notion that has done immense harm to the economy and the polity. But that's just me.
 
Old 12-14-2018, 01:38 AM   #22
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,089

Rep: Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112Reputation: 2112
It mat well not be rule of law to increase profit for shareholders but, effectively, this is how the system has been made to work. Any CEO doing anything but this is likely to find themselves out of a job pretty darn quick, just ask Jeff Jacobson, for example.
 
Old 12-14-2018, 07:10 AM   #23
YesItsMe
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2014
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 515

Rep: Reputation: 182Reputation: 182
Surprisingly, the purpose of a company is not to be nice to other people but to make money.
 
Old 12-14-2018, 08:22 AM   #24
JWJones
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2009
Location: Cascadia
Distribution: None - OpenBSD
Posts: 1,154

Rep: Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452Reputation: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by YesItsMe View Post
Surprisingly, the purpose of a company is not to be nice to other people but to make money.
And one of the great things about a market economy, is that individuals can CHOOSE to use their products or services, or not.
 
Old 12-14-2018, 10:03 AM   #25
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,203
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWJones View Post
And one of the great things about a market economy, is that individuals can CHOOSE to use their products or services, or not.
Unless there is a monopoly...
 
Old 12-14-2018, 10:26 AM   #26
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 2,597

Original Poster
Blog Entries: 6

Rep: Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288Reputation: 1288
You can't always choose. For example, I don't use Facebook. That is my choice. But Facebook still has a profile on me. It's called a "shadow profile". Most of my friends are on FB and they have my phone number and email address on their phones, maybe my postal address too. I probably get tagged in their photographs. So FB knows a lot about me that I didn't choose to tell them.
 
Old 12-14-2018, 10:57 AM   #27
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 2,319

Rep: Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041Reputation: 1041
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWJones View Post
And one of the great things about a market economy, is that individuals can CHOOSE to use their products or services, or not.
Sure, but if you're in China, the Communist Party of China, aka the "Chinese government" "chooses" what "choices" (if any) you have or don't have. And if it's about speaking ill of them, then no, you don't have that choice - actually you do... if you want to risk ending up in a labour camp... sorry a "re-education facility"
 
Old 12-14-2018, 11:30 AM   #28
Pastychomper
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Scotland
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 101

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
As others have pointed out, when big businesses do evil things they often insist they're just doing their best for their shareholders. Pamela Jones called this the "yuppie Nuremberg defence".

When authoritarian governments do evil things the "defence" amounts to disposing of any subject who complains, while telling the outside world that nothing's wrong, after all the only ones complaining are criminals and jealous foreign journalists.

What businesses and governments have in common is that if they start to approach monopoly status, the defence becomes less relevant because the "customers" have less choice and therefore less influence. Given what's been trickling into the news lately (and alluded to by jsbjsb001), aren't we all glad that China isn't heading towards a monopoly in any world markets?
 
Old 12-15-2018, 06:38 AM   #29
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, Vsido, tinycore, Q4OS
Posts: 2,778

Rep: Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149Reputation: 1149
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
A quibble.

There is no law that says corporations must make as much profit as possible. Indeed, up until 40 years ago or so, the first responsibility of a business was considered to be to the health and well-being of the business, the second to the shareholders. It was considered that the long-term health of the enterprise was more important than short-term gains.

The notion that the first responsibility of a business is to maximize short-term shareholder returns is a notion spread by the "Chicago school" of economists, but by now it has so penetrated the discourse that many persons accept it as if Adam Smith himself had said it.

In my opinion, the Chicago school has spawned a notion that has done immense harm to the economy and the polity. But that's just me.
You are not the only one, or the first, to be of that opinion. Back in the 1980s some economists ran a population study of two populations: employees and shareholders. The results were interesting. The great majority of employees would rather they work for a company that was ethical, rather than more highly profitable. The surprise was that the majority of shareholders that preferred their companies act more ethically even at the expense of profit was even higher.

Somehow, that study did not greatly affect the behavior, philosophy, or corporate culture of those companies that had embraced the philosophy of the "Chicago school". [ Those I often think as alumni of the Capone school of economics ;-) ]

I had thought of Red Hat and Google and marked exceptions that put ethics before profit, and were held to that standard by those who OWN them. I am pretty sure I was right at the time. I am not so sure about now.
 
Old 12-15-2018, 07:57 AM   #30
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 10,402
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570Reputation: 2570
i have known about Google working on getting into the chinese market for a while now.

whatever they do, they seem to be viewed more and more critically.
hardly a day goes by when i don't read or listen to another article about how google needs to be culled.
finally, it's beginning to seep into public awareness, along with general online privacy.

Google will have to play (more) by the rules, alternatives already exist and will become more and better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
I am actually a bit aghast that google ever thought they could keep a lid on this and avoid what will inevitably be a considerable loss of what they now have. I need to know more but even I, who began using both the search and gmail literally at it's inception, as a result of this news am beginning to look at just how much digging I will have to do to get out from under.
changing my email address was an effort, no way to sugarcoat that. informing contacts, changing list subscriptions...
after that it's downhill work imo.
granted, you can never be 100% google free and still surf the www.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lysander666 View Post
Not wishing to be pernickety but this is kind of hard to do, isn't it, since they're doing what they can to make themselves ubiquitours?

That would mean not using:
  1. Google search
  2. Android
  3. YouTube
  4. Chrome/Chromium of any browser that uses the Chromium base [Edge/Vivaldi/Brave/Opera]
  5. Gmail
  6. Google Maps
  7. Google Play
  8. Google Docs
  9. Google translate
ok, let's go through that list.
Here's what I use, not some sort of theoretical advice:
  1. DDG, startpage etc.
  2. OK, my phone runs LineageOS which is android, but at least no Gapps, no google account etc.
  3. hooktube.com, or at least use something like youtube-dl to avoid youtube's heavy, ad-laden and nosey UI
  4. seamonkey
  5. posteo.de (satisfied customer for many years now)
  6. Openstreetmap, and OsmAnd~ on the phone (also try osmand.net)
  7. you mean the store? https://f-droid.org/
  8. self-host
  9. that one is pretty good and i have no equally capable alternative. however, if you ever tried to translate from one not-so-common language to another not-so-common language (e.g. finnish - german), you're truly f**ked.

i will add:
10. google-analytics et. al.: nuke it into orbit with passive adblocking, noscript and requestpolicy addons.


some people will manage to remove more google than i do, and many people come up with good alternatives to 8.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Android P will hear no evil, see no evil, support evil notches LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 03-09-2018 06:03 PM
evil evil pcmcia problems WRSpithead Linux - Hardware 3 09-25-2006 03:21 AM
LXer: Lulu.tv's motto: Get played, get paid LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-31-2006 09:21 AM
Evil sagem fast or evil mandrake???? edgefield Mandriva 17 01-24-2005 04:22 AM
Evil, evil question. x_fire_phly General 5 10-03-2004 04:56 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:21 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration