[discoball]

<<But there’s a deeper thing here, which is: Technology doesn’t solve humanity’s problems. It was always naïve to think so. Technology is an enabler>>

Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested. So he's right about humanity having to solve its problems but he's forgetting that Google, the corporation, is opting to make it harder for humanity to solve its problems by enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.

[ucaetano]

> Google was enabling the DoD to be more efficient at killing people

The world is complicated, and things are never as simple as that.

Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

It is always too easy to ignore the world as it is and focus on a utopian case. War will happen, with whatever tools are available.

[natalyarostova]

Only the most dogmatic pacifists in the US still maintain that the US entering WWII was the wrong choice. Yet the US literally incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians through carpet fire-bombings. Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war.

Whether nuclear weapons and targeted drone strikes made the world in some broad strokes more peaceful on purpose, well, probably not. Nonetheless, we haven't had carpet bombings anywhere near the scale of WWII in decades.

[crwalker]

> Thankfully, we seem to have left the world of total war.

Deaths in armed conflict form a fat-tailed distribution. Extreme events dominate, and the absence of any world wars for several decades is not evidence that humanity has gotten more peaceful if world wars happen roughly every couple hundred years. See Taleb, who is much more clear. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pdf

[robax]

Yuval Noah Harari has a different argument in his book Sapiens. He says that we’re living in the most peaceful period of human existence ever and it’s caused by a few factors. #1 the stakes are too high because of nuclear weapons and #2 now more than ever a country’s resources are the brains of its inhabitants, which can’t exactly be conquered.

I think we’re definitely seeing the landscape of war changing. I really hope traditional bloody war is obsolete.

[dragonwriter]

#2 seems obviously wrong; minds can be conquered (that's what propaganda is about), if you conquer minds you don't need to fire a shot to conquer, and—except perhaps for a handful of the most totalitarian regimes as targets—its never been easier for a hostile power to deliver propaganda to the citizenry of a target state, especially if the target is a developed democracy.

So, yeah, the importance of minds as resource might be part of the reason for the absence of major armed conflict, but for almost the exact opposite of the reason Hariri suggests.

[chr1]

Hararis argument is that when the main resource of the country is brains, conquering that country with army wouldn't give you anything useful, and you need other methods to conquer like the propaganda you ention.

And because the propaganda tends to kill less than bombs, the conflicts do not end up as wars.

[crwalker]

Both views could be correct: Taleb's point is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I haven't read Sapiens, and I hope Harari is correct, but I'm not tracking the second argument. Certain governments believe they can conquer minds, as evidenced by detention/propaganda camps and universal surveillance/scoring. If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

[ntsplnkv2]

> If a government with this perspective successfully invaded another country, wouldn't they institute a similar program there and expect similar results?

No country of consequence can be invaded like this today - nuclear weapons upped the stakes considerably.

[rak00n]

It's interesting you mentioned Harari because he mentioned Google when describing #2.

[natalyarostova]

I'm familiar with Taleb's argument on this point, and it's a fair point. A massive nuclear war in 70 years would change any current conclusions that nuclear weapons make us safer.

On the other hand, I'd personally rather take a 1% chance of obscene nuclear war and otherwise peace, than a (let's say) 40% chance of ongoing infantry warfare.

[dta5003]

Hey, I'm not even that dogmatic of a pacifist and I'd go further. Entering the first WW and the preceding entangled alliances was the wrong choice (as warned against by our founders). The resolution of WWI set the stage for inevitable problems including WWII.

[u02sgb]

Not sure that's "going further". They're two separate choices (despite being related).

[ameister14]

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That's not the alternative, though. Drones are used in hundreds of situations where without them, the US simply wouldn't have taken action.

[darawk]

And it's your belief that not taking action would be better?

[kentm]

In many cases, probably. In other cases, probably not. The fear is that drone strikes lower the bar for how certain you have to be that "action" will have better results, because the practical risks have been substantially lowered. If the bar is lowered, then we may be choosing the "no action" a lot less even if it was warranted.

[darawk]

Certainly. I agree 100%. They lower the bar, and that increases their frequency. No question about that. However, you can say the same about literally any military technology. Bulletproof vests have the same effect. The question at hand is: is this lowered bar leading us to make bad judgments?

I see people pointing at cases where civilians were killed and saying "See! Its bad!". But that isn't an argument that it was a bad judgment. Collateral damage is, unfortunately, inevitable with the technology that we have. The question we have to ask is: is the amount of collateral damage we're causing worthwhile and/or could we substantially reduce collateral damage without harming our objectives. And i've basically never seen anyone even attempt to make that case.

[solitus]

Worthwhile in terms of saving other human lives or in terms of capital?

[Tyrek]

Are you certain that every drone strike that's ever been made has had a positive impact on the world?

[Forbo]

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Perhaps the inclusion of the absolutist "every drone strike... ever".

But this raises a valid concern. Is drone striking weddings really winning the hearts and minds of people, or is it just setting up the next generation of (IMO, justified) hate toward the US? [0] [1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haska_Meyna_wedding_party_airs...

[darawk]

Do you believe that those outcomes were the intent of the person that authorized these missions?

[cm2187]

None of 9/11 hijackers were victimized by the US. Islamist militants don’t need drone strikes to hate the US.

[dwaltrip]

Most statements that attempt to characterize every single instance of a phenomenon are heavily flawed, regardless of what they say. Especially in complex systems, such as those involving humans.

It seems to me that your question is coming at this from the wrong angle.

[xvector]

Now we are getting into indefinable moral calculus. If drone strikes have a net positive impact, are they justified? If you are in a train about to run over three people but can change the direction to run over one, do you do it?

[darawk]

No. But we've elected and appointed people who's job it is to:

a) be aware of all the information relevant to each operation

b) make a judgment as to whether each individual operation is worthwhile

Now, i'm not saying that makes them infallible. It certainly doesn't. There's a long history of people in such positions making poor choices. But if you're implying that they are, i'd like to see some evidence. Because what I see is a lot of "civilians died, therefore it was bad", but very little consideration of the objective of the mission, and whether or not the possibility of collateral damage was justified. What we do know is that smart people in positions of power believed that it was, and i'm happy to second-guess those beliefs if given good reason, but thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.

[Forbo]

> ...thus far i've never seen anyone give good reason in the case of these drone strikes.

Because the very action they are using to eliminate enemy combatants may in fact be creating more of them?

[landryraccoon]

I write code, and I'm quite certain that not every line of code written has had a positive impact on the world.

[ameister14]

In many cases, absolutely.

[darawk]

Which cases are those?

[ameister14]

How about these two?

https://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_y...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-...

[PhasmaFelis]

I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions.

Edit: Actually I'll go further than that. You lose all moral authority to wage war the moment you start deliberately targeting civilian medics, and that's standard policy with US drone strikes. See "double-tap."

[darawk]

> I mean, yeah? I know there have been cases where drone strikes were justified, but it really only takes one instance of "We think there's some terrorists at this wedding, so let's fire a fragmentation missile into the middle of it, and then another one a few minutes later to make sure we kill the paramedics and firemen too" to decide that the US military is not responsible enough to be allowed to make these decisions.

You think their policy is designed to kill civilian medics? Or do you think the policy was designed to kill other terrorists who come by to try to save their brothers?

[PhasmaFelis]

It's designed to kill anyone who comes to the aid of the injured. In any built-up area, that will obviously include ambulance personnel; there's no way the policy-makers do not know this. So, yes, it is absolutely designed to kill civilian medics and concerned neighbors/bystanders, and has done so over and over. See also:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2013-08-01/get...

[srtjstjsj]

All those child terrorists?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333

[drak0n1c]

The US in WW2 and Vietnam used binoculars and radio to make decisions on general areas that should be Napalm firebombed because that happened to be the most accurate technology available for sensing, communicating, and striking. We've come a long way - but why assume the current state of things is the ideal toolset to stop at? If you're upset at the status quo, why preserve it?

Also, unfortunately other technologically advanced powers exist. Regardless of the desire for pacifist isolationism, Russia and China will continue to work on military technology, and it only takes a few decades of complacency to fall far behind.

[marricks]

That is such a false dichotomy.

Consider arming police officers with tasers. We were promised it would be an alternative to guns and help protect civilians but instead police officers use tasers a ton and still shoot people a ton as well.[1]

There’s always the excuse new smarter technologies will save lives but it ends up the “safer” they are the lower the threshold to use.

1. Da_chicken’s reply below has a good source!

[da_chicken]

Research as shown that when police are armed with tasers, they will use them in situations where previously no violence would have been used at all. Additionally, tasers will be used not just to subdue an individual who is a threat, but also simply to punish those who fail to comply. Further, the police will ignore the safety limitations which would prohibit repeated use of a taser.

You cannot escape the law of unintended consequences.

https://www.alternet.org/story/149115/the_6_most_shocking_ca...

[ntsplnkv2]

You can escape it if you actually think about the scenario on the ground.

A taser can't replace a gun, it doesn't function like a gun, it's not as reliable as a gun, it doesn't have the range, etc.

But it can be useful in lieu of physical force or if someone is resisting, which is what became its use case.

[PavlovsCat]

> These men were able to give the counsel they gave because they were operating at an enormous psychological distance from the people who would be maimed and killed by the weapons systems that would result from the ideas they communicated to their sponsors. The lesson, therefore, is that the scientist and technologist must, by acts of will and of the imagination, actively strive to reduce such psychological distances, to counter the forces that tend to remove him from the consequences of his actions. He must -- it is as simple as this -- think of what he is actually doing.

-- Joseph Weizenbaum in "Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation" written in 1976, more timely than ever

[babuskov]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

Weren't drones used to carefully select targets inside cities and other areas with civilians. I'm not sure carpet bombing is an alternative for those cases:

"Carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians is considered a war crime[5] as of the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions." - source Wikipedia entry for Carpet Bombing

[srtjstjsj]

That's irrelevant. There is no world police to stop the US from carpet bombing, nor would the US tolerate drone strikes against the USA as somehow acceptable.

[andrepd]

>Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

[ucaetano]

> Because there are more courses of action other than "drone strike" and "carpet bombing".

Indeed, but those courses aren't always available, and war will happen in the way war happens.

If not, your argument isn't about drones, it is about pacifism. That's like saying "I'll magically lift everyone out of the way" in the trolley problem. Sure, it is a nice thought, but it is not an answer to the question.

I'll ask again: if the only two options were carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you choose?

Don't run away from the question.

[vladTheInhaler]

Taking issue with the problem statement isn't the same as running away from the question. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

In some imaginary world where you are somehow being compelled to chose between a button that says "Drone Strike" and one that says "Carpet Bombing", obviously "Drone Strike" is the correct option. But, equally obviously, that is a terrible model for reality. In reality, the decision maker always has the option to not kill anybody at that time. Yes, always. There might be other consequences for that choice, but admitting that it exists isn't pacifism, it's just common sense.

[kazen44]

smart bombs is the obvious answer, but your question is has a false pretense.

Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.

[ucaetano]

> Carpet bombing and a drone strike are not in the same "solution space", its like trying to tighten your shoelaces with your hands or with a 10 ton excevator.

Oh, but they are (particularly because I'm not just including drone strikes, but smart bombs).

Wanna destroy a factory, a power-plant, a bunker, a government office?

In WW2, you'd just carpet-bomb the surrounding area and hope some bombs hit the target.

Today, you deliver a payload to a specific part of it.

Compare the bombing of Belgrade in the Balkan wars to any WW2 bombing run.

There are two discussions in place:

- How we make weapons more precise and limit collateral damage - How we reduce the need for weapons in the first place

Both lead to a better situation than the status quo.

[drb91]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That’s a false dichotomy. You could do neither.

[A2017U1]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

That's the only alternative?

[danharaj]

> Would you consider drones and smart bombs bad when the alternative is carpet bombing?

No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.

[ucaetano]

> No one was ever going to carpet bomb a wedding.

Not a wedding, indeed, an entire town, with possibly dozens of weddings happening at the same time. Plus hospitals, schools, etc.

If you had to pick between carpet bombing and smart bombs, which one would you pick? (And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one).

[mrguyorama]

>And consider you don't have a choice

How do we not have a choice to NOT bomb a desert on the other side of the world?

[openfuture]

Okay let's just assume I figured out a clever way around your constraints while still avoiding the answer you want us to give. Are you just going to add another constraint to hide from the truth?

Can you at least accept that the burden of proof is on the guy who wants to go bomb random people not on the pacifists.

[3131s]

> And consider you don't have a choice, like the trolley problem, you NEED to pick one

Can I choose to drop the bomb on Americans instead?

[tome]

They've carpet bombed other places when they didn't have the alternative of a targeted strike at a wedding.

[ameister14]

Really? When and where?

[tome]

Throughout the 20th century across the globe.

[ameister14]

Ah, I had assumed you were talking about any time in the last 30 years.

[ryanmercer]

Operation Gomorrah which began on 24 July 1943 and lasted for 8 days and 7 nights. Hamburg, Germany.

>killing 42,600 civilians and wounding 37,000 in Hamburg and virtually destroying most of the city.

>The unusually warm weather and good conditions meant that the bombing was highly concentrated around the intended targets and also created a vortex and whirling updraft of super-heated air which created a 460 meter high tornado of fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa...

---

17 January 1991 – 23 February 1991

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

>2,000–3,000 Iraqi civilians killed

>10,000–12,000 killed

>100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs,

>Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[18][19] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed.

---

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

March 24, 1999 to June 10, 1999

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

>The bombing killed between 489 and 528 civilians, and destroyed bridges, industrial plants, public buildings, private businesses, as well as barracks and military installations.

>In 2000, a year after the bombing ended, Group 17 published a survey dealing with damage and economic restoration. The report concluded that direct damage from the bombing totalled $3.8 billion, not including Kosovo, of which only 5% had been repaired at that time

>In 2006, a group of economists from the G17 Plus party estimated the total economic losses resulting from the bombing were about $29.6 billion.

[ameister14]

Neither the Gulf War air campaign nor the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia qualifies as a 'carpet bombing.' Both struck individually targeted strategic targets while attempting to minimize civilian casualties.

[Spooky23]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...

We're in a world where the destructive properties of a modern army are so extreme that combat has evolved/devolved to medieval like small scale/intensity battle. Instead of targeting economic output, social networks of individuals are targeted.

People always seek effective ways to kill their enemies in conflict.

[beambot]

Both of the listed examples involve governments. To first order, governments are created by groups of people to address issues that are larger than any one individual. (I.e. closer to "humanity" as a collective than you as an individual.)

> enabling those who do not have humanity's best interest in their heart.

This statement is all subject to your interpretation of "humanity's best interests". Not saying I disagree with your interpretation... Just saying: there are many interpretations, especially in other cultural bubbles.

[samontar]

Those are government agencies you voted for. American citizens want leaders who bomb countries. Go vote a non-interventionist or isolationist if you want someone else.

Face the truth. If you want no killing, Your enemy isn’t Google, it’s your neighbour.

[cortesoft]

I mean, I did vote for someone who doesn't want to do those things.

That person lost.

[justicezyx]

Sure, then it's not Google's fault either.

[ArchTypical]

> Face the truth. If you want no killing, Your enemy isn’t Google, it’s your neighbour.

> it's not Google's fault either.

Starting from a false truth, you can come to any conclusion. Google is responsible for choosing to enable immoral acts and pretending there are no fault actors is one of your faults.

[justicezyx]

I said it before:

- If you continue this line of thinking, your only option probably is to extinguish all human being.

[andrepd]

Absolutely. There can be no protesting ANY immoral actions, because that means you must advocate for ending humanity /s.

[samontar]

And yet you fund the killing with your taxes. You know they kill, you know they need money to build the killing machines, you give them money.

[dta5003]

Have an option for me to withhold those taxes that doesn't involve more killing? Sign me up.

[samontar]

Both you and Google are helping with the killing because it helps you make money. That’s okay. We all do terrible things for money.

You can withhold taxes by dropping your income below the minimum threshold.

[kazen44]

yes, but you cannot deny paying these taxes because you live at the wims of the tyranny of the majority.

You could ofcourse proclaim not wanting to take part in said nation anymore and not pay the taxes, but then you would also loose out of well, the rest of society basically.

[samontar]

All you have to do is live unemployed and take money from the government, thus draining it of killing money.

[make3]

I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry

[knieveltech]

Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

[TeMPOraL]

Gets redirected towards the war effort, suffers some problems after the war, and then recovers.

Assuming isolated China vs. US war, there's still the whole Europe to manufacture trinkets for.

[CM30]

Which countries in Europe would still buy Chinese goods if China were at war with the US?

Maybe it's my memories of being taught about World War 1 and 2 speaking, but it seems more likely Europe would side with the US than China, and kinda unlikely they'd let both parties import goods as they please.

The chances of it remaining an 'isolated' war where no one else gets involved would be low enough than action would probably cost China most of the European market along with the likes of Canada/Australia/etc.

[TeMPOraL]

Well, the isolation assumption is a pretty weak one, but taking it, if China won, then why wouldn't Europe want to buy from them? Economics always beats hard feelings.

[CM30]

If China won would assume Europe would stay out of the conflict while the US and China fought each other. A fight with China as the enemy would probably end up dragging in basically the entire 'Western' world.

Of course, it's all pretty insane to speculate about, since:

A: Most countries now seem like they're trying to avoid actual wars as much as possible, and most remaining issues seem to be sparked off more by extremist nutcases/cults than a country's army trying to invade or fight off another.

B: The US, most of Europe, China, etc have nuclear weapons, so any actual war between any of them would probably end like everyone's worst fears about the Cold War made reality. Don't think there'd be much trade or economics left after that.

[eiaoa]

>> I'm a progressive, but there is no peace without being ready for war. I just hope we don't find out too late, and China has much better smart weaponry

> Quick question: in this hypothetical where China presents an existential threat to the US, what happens to the Chinese economy when they invade the largest consumer of their domestically produced goods and services?

WWII was not bad for the US economy. The car plants were converted to build tanks and airplanes, then they were converted back when the war was over.

I don't think China poses an existential military threat to the US itself in the medium term, but it does pose one to Taiwan and potentially some other countries in the region. Unfortunately, the main thing that contains that threat and maintains peace is US military superiority.

[srtjstjsj]

China is a totalitarian state that is not accountable to the people of its economy.

[marricks]

His statement is a wonderful PR side step of that issue. It’s meant to convey an understanding of the moral challenges of technology but with their support of the DoD it seems, well, words are wind.

[virmundi]

You're making an assumption about best. What is best?

Is it personal liberty within the confines of enough law to provide some semblance of stability? The US is straining with that and it is arguably the most free of the Western Nations. Before the EU apologists jump on, keep in mind the EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/european-court-ind...). Gun violence appears to be leaving the ghettos and moving into more civilized neighborhoods.

Is it an authoritarian power that feeds, houses, and medicates its population? China does a lot of this. Hunger is down dramatically. People are still largely free to go about their daily lives.

Is it in-between? I don't know. The EU is starting to fray there. Nationalist movements are seeing that countries have to give up their current individual identities to conform with a Brussels/German worldview. Is this wrong? How are you to say?

My whole point in all this is that you've alluded to some truth claim as an attack on Google. Can you a) clearly define your truth claim, at least to yourself, and b) say why it's more true than the Chinese view that people are sheep and need a shepard? The Left in the US holds this view to varying degrees. That's why we need all this regulation. No one should be free to buy plastic straws.

[DanBC]

> Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed

No they didn't. They said you're not allowed to incite religious hatred by focussing attention on one particular religious figure from one particular time when the practice was common.

If that commentator is interested in paedophilia she will have made comments about the practice of child marriage among Christians -- something still happening in the US today. She did not mention any other region because she's not interested in attacking paedophilia, she's interested in attacking Muslims.

[virmundi]

Her argument was cogent and to the point. In Islam Mohamed is the ideal man. You should emulate him as a result. You see in Pakistan younger brides as a result. We in the West call that pedophilia. She said that. Oops, stating theological facts are now tantamount to hate speech. Welcome to your free speech world, EU. War is Peace. Silence is speaking.

The greater part of the ruling is that you can't say something that might incite to violence a 3rd party. If I say that Manchester is a terrible team, am I not at risk of loosing my free speech? Many of those footballer fans are violent, as shown by numerous riots. Clearly making them fussy is a risky thing. Am I liable if some adults fair to act rationally when the honor of their team, of which they are not personally members, is attacked? According to the EU court, maybe.

Child marriage is not now, nor has it even been common in Christianity. There are fringe groups that endorse it, and they are rare. They are operating well outside of the bounds of the historic teachings of the church. This is not a no-true-scottsman argument. There are teachings of the churches throughout the ages. If someone behalves in a manner that countermands those teachings, they are an apostate (assuming they still claim fidelity to the great religion). You've created a false-dichotomy in order to remove the true issue here: as the West embraces Muslims with open arms, you're going to run afoul of cultural differences. The West can either say, "No, you many not mutilate a 9 year olds vagina and marry her!" Or it can say, "Sure, why not?" At present, the vanguard of the process such as Sweden, is already ruling on such unions [1]. It is a thorny issue, but the EU will do what it always does: capitulate to invading forces.

https://www.quora.com/Did-Sweden-legalize-child-marriage-and...

[mLuby]

Ensuring your citizens are safe, fed, housed, and healthy is the bare minimum for any government (Looking at you, SF). "Peace, land, bread", you know?

But any time an entity is afraid to be challenged, it is selfishly choosing its own survival over the possibility that there exists a better provider for its citizens. That part is the "not best" part, and it's also the part Google is accused of helping with. If Google was secretly working with the PRC to improve Chinese citizens' medical care, there wouldn't be any concern.

[virmundi]

How do you know that the entity isn't better than its people? The long term stability of governments correlates with general wellness. Technology helps make the government more stable.

If 90% of the population's standard of living improves at the expense of the 10%, is that wrong? Where is the line? Even when a rising tide raises all boats, there are many who will still get swamped. Should we stop forward progression due to that?

[tomp]

Does it? The government of North Korea is far more stable than the government of e.g. Slovenia. Still, I'd never switch countries from the latter to the former.

(Well, maybe it correlates, but then I'd argue you're just optimising the wrong variable...)

[mLuby]

Are you describing a situation where government A is objectively better for its citizens but they want government B (which wants to supplant A and is objectively worse) more than A for some reason?

I'm not following how your second paragraph is connected to the question of governments protecting themselves at the expense of their citizens' well-being. It sounds like you're talking about the trolley problem, and tying that to some notion that we can halt 'progress'? What do you mean?

[virmundi]

I’m saying it is not obvious that an authoritarian government that suppresses a minority for the betterment of the majority is bad.

[tomp]

Technically, EHRC isn't part of the EU (it's part of the Council of Europe). I agree with your point though, I was terribly disappointed by that decision, and I think that all EU countries should quit EHRC immediately.

[detaro]

Because the ECtHR decided that member states have (relatively) lots of freedom in how they regulate speech pertaining religion, instead of pushing through a rule centrally? Typically, people dislike european institutions for the opposite.

GPs framing of this as "EU Human Rights Court ruled that no one is allowed to speak against Mohamed" is very misleading, the court ruled no such thing. (I still don't like how that case went, on all levels, but it's no-where near extreme as some people claim)

[tomp]

Then what's the point of a centralized human rights court? "Well member states can decide whom to murder." Or maybe I just think that freedom of speech is a human right while EHRC does not.

[detaro]

Freedom of Expression is a human right, but the Convention on Human Rights explicitly argues for restrictions of free speech in this section, and the court allowed countries to follow that. The countries are the ones that decided on that Convention, despite criticism of that specific part of it. The court works in the framework provided to it by the Convention, which is fairly clear on murder, less so on free speech. IMHO it would have been good to strengthen that somewhere in the 65 years since, but the countries haven't done so - and given the geographic reach of the convention, it seems unlikely to happen. Could maybe be done on an EU-level, or in a new sub-treaty.

IMHO no need to go from "this treaty isn't as absolute on free speech as I'd like" to "what's the point of any of it then?".

[nsedlet]

Agreed. Perhaps this is an unfair reading, but it feels like the implication is that if there aren't technological solutions to problems, then technology companies don't play an important role in those solutions.

But Google has so much power to help, and in fact is better-positioned than almost any organization to help - and in fact has a duty to do so given that it helped create the problems. For instance, Youtube is one of the biggest sources of propaganda and uncivilized discourse there is.

[Spooky23]

That's reductive argument. Who decides who is worthy enough to hold "humanity's best interests" at heart?

That's a subjective judgement that depends on who, where and when you are. Kipling's vision of "humanity" and its interest is very different that Mao's, which is in turn very different from yours.

Technology makes things more efficient, but doesn't change the act. Getting your head bashed in by a caveman, cut off by a 19th century cavalry sabre wielded by a horseman, or vaporized by an explosive shell has the same end result.

Do you equate the person who whittled the caveman's club, raised the cavalryman's' horse or operated the supply train that transported the shell with Google?

[fwip]

The company making bombs is the same as the company making software to deliver those bombs via drone.

Both are working in service of making it easier for the government to kill people.

[Aunche]

If that's the case, the person financing the bombs and war are to blame as well. You can't really get away with avoiding taxes, so you can get a pass on that one. However, you probably own a smartphone that was largely manufactured in China. Buying imported goods enables Chinese oppression much more than introducing a search engine that just maintains the status quo and siphons some money away from China.

[lern_too_spel]

> and China to be more oppressive until its workers protested.

No such product launched, so no enabling has occurred. You might be confusing Google with Apple here, but Apple's workers haven't protested, as far as we've heard.

[vetinari]

DARPA and NSF MDDS grants were the money that kickstarted Google back at the Stanford University. Later, they took investments from another three-letter agencies.

Is it any wonder they did what they did?