主题：NYT一篇抽狗狗耳光的评论 -- 我爱莫扎特

共:💬15 🌺34

老大河待整

全看树展主题 · 分页首页上页下页末页

NYT一篇抽狗狗耳光的评论

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/opinion/16iht-edmorozov.html?ref=global

首先，作者认为狗狗撤出的理由非常无厘头：

The executives were nothing but furious — so furious that they awoke from their ethical coma, broke their earlier agreement with the Chinese government and stopped censoring search results for controversial political queries.

If Google’s explanations and actions seem to be lacking in logic and coherence, it’s because they are.

那么一定有什么别的原因在里头。

So if the sudden change of mind on the issue of censorship was not driven by cybersecurity, what could explain Google’s appetite for self-destruction?

The most plausible explanation seems to be that this is Google’s own, uber-geeky way of doing penance for the evil bargain that it struck with the Chinese government in 2005.

不做坏事的狗狗到底和邪恶的TG达成什么罪恶的交易呢？居然让狗狗一直良心不安，现在突然想赎罪？下面讨论。

In retrospect, it’s easy to see where Google’s purely utilitarian calculations went wrong. In addition to their “do no evil” motto, Googlers have always been guided by another, much less explicit philosophy: “computational arrogance.”

大家别听它说不做坏事，就以为它是小白兔。丫还有一个特点叫做“有算计的傲慢”。

接下来讨论狗狗那帮书呆子怎么算计TG的，当然TG大坏蛋也有不少工程师，人家也会算。

A company started by talented computer scientists and engineers, Google carefully applied its scientific, heavily quantitative methods to every single business decision and quandary, from book digitization to freedom of expression. This is how they came to reason that having more books online — even if distributed under an inferior copyright regime — is better than having none. Similarly, this is how they reasoned that having more information online in China — even if some of it is mediocre or censored — is better than none.

Reasoning by common sense or intuition is not really an option here: Googlers seem to check all hunches, no matter how good, by their cubicles, for spreadsheets never lie.

But China, too, has plenty of engineers — especially in the leadership of its Communist Party. The Chinese leaders may lag behind Google in matters of computer science, but they are surely ahead in the art of Machiavellian politics.

It wouldn’t be surprising if they followed a very similar thought process: Having mediocre information about human rights activists is better than no information. And who would be better suited to organize it all — to be hacked by China’s own hackers at some point in the future — than the overly ambitious Google engineers?

于是，双方互相算计，达成了协议。作者猜测，除了众所周知的网审之外，狗狗很可能给TG留了后门，方便TG偷窥。这才可以解释为啥这次狗狗一口咬定是TG在攻击ZD邮箱了---因为后门就是狗狗给开的呀！

Guided mostly by its spreadsheets — not historical analysis — Google took the bait and struck a deal with the Chinese government, a deal of which very little is known. We do know that Google agreed to censor certain search results. But was there also something else — perhaps some data-mining feature thrown in to placate the Chinese censors — that Google never told us about? The presence of such a backdoor to user data — which may have been abused by the third-parties — could explain Google's near certainty that Chinese authorities are behind the cyberattacks.

真相大白，狗狗现在装纯洁也没用了。

Still, the truth remains that Google failed to do due diligence on China and should bear full responsibility for it. It is unlikely to succeed in whitewashing its business blunders by trumpeting its newly acquired respect for human rights and freedom of expression.

本帖一共被 1 帖引用 (帖内工具实现)

西媒这次倒不是一边倒

沙发花

什么“不做恶”呀

装什么装，看看这Googling Obama's China policy最后一段说的：

“They like to go around and sing the mantra, ‘Don’t be evil,’” said John Simpson, a consumer advocate with the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog. “But they almost always act in what they perceive to be Google’s interest — and that doesn’t necessarily coincide with that of any government.”

在非赢利的“消费者监督组织”工作的辛普森指出：“他们喜欢满世界地宣讲'不做恶'这个座右铭，但是，他们常常根据自己所认定的符合谷歌利益的原则行事，而这（谷歌的利益）并一定与任何政府的（利益）相吻合”。

本来觉得谷歌不错，它这一番矫情真让人倒胃口了。

本帖一共被 1 帖引用 (帖内工具实现)