[michaelmrose]

The difference is of course Consequentialism. If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently. This is fundamentally different from banning ads that deny Christ or espouse a political position that is merely contra to their leaderships position but not disastrous or inherently immoral.

Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race. As to the genesis of such a policy consider its own staff and leadership. They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species. As this decision will only earn them limited good will and will certainly cost them money I would suggest that this course of action is undertaken because they believe it is the right thing to do.

[simorley]

> The difference is of course Consequentialism.

Which is just rationalization to justify something you agree with.

> If you believe that your actions that will contribute to death and deprivation of future generations then you are morally obliged to treat this case differently.

You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people. I don't think the death of anyone is on their minds. Your logic is also what pro-lifers use. Will google ban planned parenthood ads? Would you support it? You and google are the defenders of future generations right?

> They are overwhelmingly educated individuals whose demographic overwhelmingly

Such a fine line between educated and indoctrinated.

> believes our actions are having a deleterious effect on the future of our and other species

Ah, the same demographics that uses the most energy, creates the most waste, responsible for the destruction of most species, living in cities where most wild life was wiped out. I'm part of the demographics you describe and rather than the false virtues you attributed to the demographics, I'd say the demographics is self-righteous, hypocritical, brainwashed, etc.

> Their is value in the objectivity you describe but it doesn't outweigh the survival of the human race.

If that was the case, wouldn't it be better to shut down google and all industrial activity? But of course, no real scientist believes climate change will be the end of the human race. It's just politically driven people who scare monger with lies. Obviously you don't believe that climate change will wipe out the human race since you are using the internet.

Ignoring the fact that google didn't ban such ads for 25 years, lets say you are right. Lets try a categorical imperative on your logic. Google would have to ban everything from the US government/military, every media organization, every fast food, soda, pharmaceutical, gambling, etc ads.

Funny how ads that will directly lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people are okay to you, but ads that will lead to the death of hardly anyone is banned.

What's the percentage of anti vs pro climate change ads? 1 to 1000? You see pro-climate change ads everywhere. You hardly see anti-climate change ads. So this has nothing to do with ads but politics. Google is just going to use it to silence politicians.

Honestly, your argument is humanity will become extinct. So lets cheer google banning some ads. I know your ideology/religion is climate change, but does that make any sense to you? So funny to see people defend google - a monstrous corporate entity.

[rbanffy]

You believing or agreeing that climate change is an existential risk to humanity makes no difference to the evidence we have. If we don’t act, a lot of people will die, our supply chains will be severely disrupted (do you think the current chip shortage is serious?) and that could cause a partial collapse of our civilisation.

[abduhl]

All of this sounds like disruption to the status quo, which is a cornerstone of the hacker ethos. I didn’t realize that regulatory capture had occurred in the hacker space. Should google also censor any ads denying security vulnerabilities?

Edit: this may be a bit too snarky but hyperbolic posts appear to have become a norm on this site and it has become all too obvious that these types of posts are more interested in soundbite style shaming than actual discussion.

[rbanffy]

> All of this sounds like disruption to the status quo, which is a cornerstone of the hacker ethos

What part of "millions will die" is difficult to understand? I don't think genocide is part of the hacker ethos.

[simorley]

> You believing or agreeing that climate change is an existential risk to humanity makes no difference to the evidence we have.

It's not me "believing", it's no sane person believes it. What "evidence" are you talking about? If you have evidence, then you should inform the bankers, government officials, business leaders, etc because they aren't planning on the world ending anytime soon.

> If we don’t act

Act? You mean ban 0.00000001% of ads on google?

> a lot of people will die

Not anymore. Google banned 0.00000001% of their ads.

> our supply chains will be severely disrupted (do you think the current chip shortage is serious?)

Honestly, do people bother to think anymore? You are just parroting talking points. Why are you so worried about supply chains if we are all going to be dead?

> and that could cause a partial collapse of our civilisation.

So which is it. The end of humanity

There was a time when I was like you. When I was still in school and watched Al Gore's "documentary".

You went from "existential risk to humanity" to "a lot of people will die" to "supply chains" to "could cause a partial collapse of our civilization". It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about and just parroting nonsense you saw on TV or read on the news.

Climate change happens with or without humans. It will be detrimental to some, beneficial to others. As with all things, it'll have its winners and losers. We will adapt. Whatever the case, life will go on.

Certainly, if we faced existential risk, we wouldn't let google exist and certainly wouldn't allow google's founder to boat around the world and buy up property in new zealand. The world is ending but all the rich people are living the good life. But you have the evidence after all. That's why you jumped from "existential risk" to a possible "partial" collapse of civilization.

[rbanffy]

> There was a time when I was like you.

I seriously doubt it.

[jimmygrapes]

Please keep religious flame wars elsewhere

[spaced-out]

>You are talking about a company that helped foster the "revolutions" in the middle east and europe that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands/millions of people.

Google caused revolutions in the Middle East? How exactly?