Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

CISPA is the New SOPA/PIPA/OPEN/ACTA/etc. etc. etc.

<< < (4/9) > >>

IainB:
Not understanding US politics very much, I couldn't understand why the US Government seem so intent on shoving this difficult-to-digest invasive censorship and control legislation down the public's collective throat. Why must it be done?
Well, now I think I understand, after reading this post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government
The post uses this informative image:
Spoiler

If this is true, then the Music/Media Industry apparently is the Government, and vice versa.
Good, at least that seems to be clear now.

Now though, what I don't understand is: How can this situation occur - apparently in full public view - without it being regarded as potentially corrupt practice, or at least brimful of rigging with conflict of interest?
I am genuinely mystified by this. Is it quite legal?

IainB:
Meanwhile, Google co-founder Brin is worried about internet freedoms
This is a public statement by Brin. I think he is probably genuinely concerned, and probably for good reason too.

Renegade:

Not understanding US politics very much, I couldn't understand why the US Government seem so intent on shoving this difficult-to-digest invasive censorship and control legislation down the public's collective throat. Why mst it be done?
Well, now I think I understand, after reading this post: Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government
The post uses this informative image:If this is true, then the Music/Media Industry apparently is the Government, and vice versa.
Good, at least that seems to be clear now.

Now though, what I don't understand is: How can this situation occur - apparently in full public view - without it being regarded as potentially corrupt practice, or at least brimful of rigging with conflict of interest?
I am genuinely mystified by this. Is it quite legal?
-IainB (April 17, 2012, 10:59 PM)
--- End quote ---


Washington D.C. seems to feed off of conflict of interest. It's simply appauling that it hasn't been made illegal.


Meanwhile, Google co-founder Brin is worried about internet freedoms
This is a public statement by Brin. I think he is probably genuinely concerned, and probably for good reason too.
-IainB (April 17, 2012, 11:25 PM)
--- End quote ---


Not so sure about that... If you dig a bit deeper there, Brin has some financial motives for all of that. He's just playing the, "Oh~! Think of the children," card there.

Perhaps I'm a tad cynical about his motives, but seriously... how can anyone not be? Google does what is good for Google. Playing the "nice boy" is one of the things that is good for them. After all, they're at least "not as evil as Apple" or whoever.

In short, there's a conflict of interest there for Brin. Yeah, sure it's somewhat not totally on the dark side, but still...

I would like to direct people to Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

I think Kant is bang on, and that failure to understand it is failure to understand morality.

Here's a very short summary:

Do what you could will to be a univeral law.
Doing good things because they benefit you isn't morally praise-worthy.
Doing good things for no other reason than because they are good is praise-worthy.
Treat people as an end.

That is by no means complete, but it's close enough to "get the jist".

When I see that Brin (or whoever) actually does anything simply because it's "right" (inline with the categorical imperative), then I'll have a bit more faith. For now, I just don't see any of that happening out there in the corporate/business/political/finance world.
 
One of the biggest problem that I see is that "treat people as an end" has been perverted to "treat money as THE end".

IainB:
Meanwhile, Google co-founder Brin is worried about internet freedoms
This is a public statement by Brin. I think he is probably genuinely concerned, and probably for good reason too.
-IainB (April 17, 2012, 11:25 PM)
--- End quote ---
Not so sure about that... If you dig a bit deeper there, Brin has some financial motives for all of that. He's just playing the, "Oh~! Think of the children," card there.
Perhaps I'm a tad cynical about his motives, but seriously... how can anyone not be? Google does what is good for Google. Playing the "nice boy" is one of the things that is good for them. After all, they're at least "not as evil as Apple" or whoever.
...
One of the biggest problem that I see is that "treat people as an end" has been perverted to "treat money as THE end".
-Renegade (April 17, 2012, 11:50 PM)
--- End quote ---

Well that's really an ad hominem - a logical fallacy.
What he said seems to stand up on its own, though I did wonder about the motivation for his saying what he did, being skeptical, but I usually tend to presume that people are probably telling the truth until such time as it seems that they are deliberately disingenuous (dissembling, or have told or are telling a lie). Then you cannot rationally believe anything they say is true, after that (like the Mann Hockey Stick "trick" in Climategate).

That is quite different to someone saying something irrational/stupid - they are probably just being irrational rather than disingenuous. I put that sort of thing down to our three old companions - ignorance, stupidity and bigotry.

I therefore would give Brin the benefit of the doubt, since I do not see that he has made any irrational statement.

Renegade:
Well that's really an ad hominem - a logical fallacy.
-IainB (April 18, 2012, 01:28 AM)
--- End quote ---

It's not an ad hominem. I didn't attack him. I only pointed out that there is a conflict of interest, and I questioned his motives. I then pointed out my cynicism and reluctance to believe that he's doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

Here's a nice ad hominem:

Brin is selfish and greedy, so this must be financially motivated.

But as for Brin's rationality, I don't think that it's particularly relevant to his intentions. It's perfectly fine to be completely rational and utterly selfish at the same time, even while professing to be altruistic, which would only make you a liar about your motivations, and not necessarily about whatever you'd actually argued.

So, at the end of the day, whether what he's professing is good or not is one thing, and his motivations are another. It is certainly possible that his motivations are "pure", but given past decisions from the executive officers at Google, I have a bit of a hard time swallowing that. They've got a clear history. Ignoring that is being willfully blind.

I would hope that his motivations are to "treat people as an end". But like I said, that cynical part of me is screaming, "Don't be an idiot Ryan!" It's just too loud at the moment, and I can't ignore it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page