I am aware of America's many follies and villainous acts in support of misguided notions. It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world.
I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?
> I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation).
He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that. They knew it would be bad PR but they wanted to make money so they took the contract initially and tried to keep it quite. Then, all the leaks happened causing it to backfire, tons of employees and users got upset, and so they reversed directions as they think the good reputation for attracting employees and users will pay off more than military contracts in the long term.
> Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?
It wasn't just Google that had to comply with prism. They as long with every other company that wants to operate in the US had to comply with it because every company has to comply with the laws of each country they operate in.
> He's beholden to his shareholders and every move they have made is all about that.
That's the real nub. I'd posit that this is also about keeping a small but vocal group of employees happy. However, why did Google effectively disavow all cooperation with the military to appease this group? They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.
> They could have easily set up a division and staffed it with willing people. Or Alphabet the parent company could have started something else up (how costly is it to incorporate, really?). Looks like none of these things was even given serious consideration.
Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?
> Did you even read up on this story because that is essentially what they tried to do and it backfired?
I read that the 'contract was routed through' some front-company. I don't think that was separate company staffed with people to adapt google AI to this purpose.
> . It's regrettable, but Americans as a group have strived to rectify wrongs and steer our country in the right direction. I deeply cherish our American values and think they're what set us apart from the rest of the world.
Ha. Ha ha. Hahahah.
Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests?
Your position is laughable, and the classic, pathetic opinion of the sort of American who hasn't traveled around the world to see that their system of values is not qualitatively different from that of most other developed Western nations.
> Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests?
The "purely economic interests" qualifier makes your question difficult to answer, but France has likely been involved in more invasions in foreign countries.
> Please, keep drinking that Kool-Aid of American exceptionalism. Apart from the British, which other country has contributed to more invasions in foreign countries for the sake of purely economic interests?
I will!
Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism? Which country has provided refuge and solace to more oppressed and exiled peoples in the world than the US? Which country fought a violent war to rid itself of slavery? Surely not the Western European nations you speak of.
America has done a lot of damage in this world, but I can't think of any other nation that has done so much good either.
Well, technically, we didn't fight a violent war to rid ourselves of slavery -- as hard as the history book try to push that view.
Slavery died out pretty much everywhere else in the world without bloodshed so it's pretty safe to assume the US wouldn't have been different in that regard, the freeing of the slaves was more of a punitive action against the seceding states than anything else.
Anyhoo, my point being that it isn't a grand example of American exceptionalism. Much better to just link to Kevin Kline's A Fish Called Wanda rant...
And why doesn't my iPhone know how to spellcheck "slavery", are we trying to remove it from the language double-plus fast?
Worth remembering: slavery was outlawed in the United States after it was outlawed in Great Britain.
In the long-view, the whole American Experiment may not have been a net positive for slaves and their descendants relative to a hypothetical alternate history where the Revolutionary War failed and the US was just more British Empire. Nearly impossible to say with certainty, of course, because a Britain that included the US may have had different incentives to push it away from ending slavery.
The British just exported it to locales outside their own. See the Caribbean, the remote Pacific Islands (Australia, effectively British for practical purposes at that time, enslaved many Pacific Islanders to work in plantations), much of the Indian Subcontinent, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia... shall I go on?
> Which country came to the aid of Britain, and all those Western European nations when they were faced with the existential threat of Nazism?
Russia mainly, from where an estimated 24 million people died. American also didn't wade into a war through purely selfless means either, if Germany managed to invade Britain and western Europe, America would have been at significant threat.
India (part of the British Empire) also sent millions who died fighting in North Africa.
The reasons every country got into the war were complex. But it is also largely true that America spilled blood and treasure out of a sense of obligation to fight Nazism, despite having a significant immigrant German population (who fought against their brethren on the other side), going so far as to impose a draft in the later stages of the war.
This is so much BS. You should actually read the history of the reasons for the involvement of the US in the WW2 theaters.
You sound like a young kid who has never actually read about history and geopolitics.
Please dude, actually read up on the involvement of the US in the secret wars in Cambodia by Kissinger, the School of the Americas, instrumental in teaching South American militaries repressive strategies that killed tens of thousands of innocents with the full support of the American government, the Iran-Contra affair, the ridiculous involvement in Vietnam.
There is an innumerably long list of atrocities commited purposely by the American government and with the silent consent of the American majority.
Seriously bro, Irak happened less than 15 years ago in a completely manufactured war and you're actually so stupid to believe that there's anything particularly worthy of American Imperalism?
You should try to be on the receiving end of the American business interests that have fueled these conflicts, lest we see what your opinion on the matter would be.
> Please dude, actually read up on the involvement of the US in the secret wars in Cambodia by Kissinger, the School of the Americas, instrumental in teaching South American militaries repressive strategies that killed tens of thousands of innocents with the full support of the American government, the Iran-Contra affair, the ridiculous involvement in Vietnam.
Kissinger was just pure evil. Apart from his involvement in the things above, he also actively supported dictators in Pakistan, and indirectly did nothing to stop the slaughter of civilians in (then) East Pakistan.
But, I still stand by my point: Americans have strived to right the wrongs (and there have been many and monumental ones). Eventually all these 'secret' activities have come out and the public has ensured that the people responsible were shamed or held accountable, to some extent (it never is a full reckoning, unfortunately). I can't think of that happening in China, for instance. Name any other great power that hasn't had stuff like this?
I can't for the life of me see why Sundar Pichai should be beholden to his (significantly foreign) employees and privilege their interest over that of the nation (his nation). Remember that Google itself is tainted, being complicit in spying over Americans (PRISM, anyone?). Why shouldn't such an entity be regulated?