The US's Center for Democracy & Technology has announced that after two years of negotiations, Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft will in the next few days adopt a voluntary code of ethics "intended to safeguard online freedom of speech around the world". The big three joined the initiative early last year and promised to work towards …
ethics or legality?
the reality of the situation is that if you want to operate in a country, then you must abide by that country's laws. If that country's laws go against your sense of ethics, then you shouldn't be operating in that country! Not just saying 'sod it' and ignoring the laws you don't like.
While the international nature of the internet makes this slightly fuzzy, but there is a big difference between having a site that is accessible in a country, and having an arm of your business based there.
I agree... can someone refresh my memory why Google got flak for not indexing certain controversial things? We/you/one may not agree with a certain country's policies, but they are their policies and it's for the wider political community to decide how to deal with them, not Google's.
In my mind, it's akin to going on holiday to Mexico and insisting on speaking English and eating fish & chips. If you don't like the culture/policies/whatever of a certain country... don't go there!?
I think MicrooGoohoo! is a better made-up word. Technically an added 'o' but it still works I think.
The problem is when there is a conflict between making a profit and running "ethically", as hinted at in the last bit of the paragraph. The big companies don't want to alienate (or miss out on) what is a massive market, and could easily grow (if it isn't already) to be the biggest one for their services. This therefore means that they then behave in a way that people "back home" don't approve of.
Yes, staying out of the country would be the best option from the point of view of being a "nice" company, but no CEO is going to commit possible economic suicide by doing so.
A lot of political pressure groups don't seem to understand that if you expect other companies to obey your laws in your country, then your companies have to do the same over there (your fish & chips example). This seems especially prevalent in the US.
Soo much better, plus you don't show your preference for Google by including one companies complete name.
reads better to me, anyway.
Paris, 'cos she does not have to search.
Plus, it sounds like it could be Yog-Sothoth's little brother.
Or possibly the more suggestive GooMiYa.
>Google declared: "Promoting freedom of expression and privacy for users in the United States and around the world is a top priority for Google.<
Cool, they'll stop Phorm in their tracks [/irony]
- 'Kim Kardashian snaps naked selfies with a BLACKBERRY'. *Twitterati gasps*
- Crawling from the Wreckage THE DEATH OF ECONOMICS: Aircraft design vs flat-lining financial models
- Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia
- Apple's iPhone 6 first-day sales are MEANINGLESS, mutters analyst
- Bargain basement iPhone shoppers BEWARE! eBay exposes users to phishing vuln