[n1231231231234]

> At that time, Google co-founder Sergey Brin made clear that he was strongly opposed to the censorship. Brin had spent part of his childhood in the Soviet Union, and said that he was “particularly sensitive to the stifling of individual liberties” due to his family’s experiences there. In 2010, after the company pulled its search engine out of China, Brin told the Wall Street Journal that “with respect to censorship, with respect to surveillance of dissidents” he saw “earmarks of totalitarianism [in China], and I find that personally quite troubling.”

Poulson's view seems to align with Brin's view from 2010. I wonder what Brin would have to say about the issue today, because the facts in China have not changed much since 2010, certainly not to the better.

[jonas21]

> I wonder what Brin would have to say about the issue today, because the facts in China have not changed much since 2010, certainly not to the better.

I wonder about this too.

By this point, it's pretty clear that Google's strategy of leaving China hasn't led to any improvement in China with respect to censorship and individual liberties. Instead, Chinese companies that are willing to do whatever the Chinese government wants without question have filled the gap that Google left.

I wonder if he's concluded that this strategy is a failure and the best way to improve conditions is to re-enter China, even if it means playing by their rules.

[sampo]

These are not easy questions.

Taking this to an absurd level: If the Aztecs still existed and were sacrificing humans with their volcanic rock blades. Should we sell them at least some steel blades, so their victims could die a little quicker and less painful death? Or should we absolutely abstain from selling any weapons to those murderous bastards?

I don't know.

[pas]

We do trade embargoes against North Korea, but not against Saudi Arabia. Maybe because the latter is (or seems) less brutal.

Before a certain size and/or complexity use of force to literally force changes seems like the best option. But above that, there's no point in waging a war for more world happiness.

And then, on the other end of the spectrum we have the sophisticated autocratic propaganda machines (that are democratic in name), where people 4 year after 4 year vote in (almost) the same kleptocrats. Of course the election system favors the ruling party, of course there's a lot of ordinary cheating, of course the ruling party somehow manages to spend many times more on campaigning than the opposition, but the brain washing works, so why not?

[Bendingo]

> Maybe because the latter is (or seems) less brutal Or maybe not [1] [2]

[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/sa...

[2] - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/saudi-arabia-crucified-ma...

[ionised]

The idea that you can change the system from within is incredibly naive and usually put forward as a justification for wanting to exploit that system.

[ocdtrekkie]

Brin spoke a bit about it to employees recently, and thinks it has "certain trade-offs": https://theintercept.com/2018/08/17/internal-meeting-reveals...

He stopped talking shortly thereafter because a Google employee was leaking his statements to a reporter in realtime.

(My guess is the trade-off between the moral issues and the ability to like plate his yacht in platinum.)

[mikejb]

I think that the trade-off is described better between the moral issues and the ability to provide your service to more users. I don't think making even more money is much of a factor anymore for Page and Brin.

[ocdtrekkie]

Would you not describe the benefit of having more users being... More money?

[sgnelson]

Or let's just say hypothetically it's not. Why do they feel the need to have more users?

I'm of the opinion anyone who's still in the game after becoming a billionaire is doing so for non-monetary reasons. At this point it might not be about money, but power? Either way...

[mikejb]

a) more users doesn't necessarily imply that (though in this case is probably does), and b) it's about the "why" - The conclusion from "more users = more money" to "must be about money" isn't universally true, as it ignores any and every other possible motivation. E.g. power, legacy, success.

[creaghpatr]

Wouldn't the prospect of billions of dollars for you personally change your mind?

[4ad]

If you already have more billions of dollars that you could ever spend on, what difference does an additional billion of dollars make?

I suppose not knowing the answer to that questions makes me likely not to become a billionaire...