Linked by Mohit Ranka on Thu 17th May 2007 15:07 UTC
Google A recent Google acquisition of DoubleClick for a whopping USD 3.1 billion has turned many heads. The recent past certainly does not fit into Google's traditional non-aggressive attitude towards acquisitions for monopoly in the market. DoubleClick Inc., a spearhead in ad-serving, is only one of many companies acquired by Google. A comprehensive list can be seen here. Beside Google's acquisitions, this article will also explore some changes in Google's philosophy and potential threats to web community.
Thread beginning with comment 241197
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: too late
by irbis on Thu 17th May 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: too late"
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

"When the American government came knocking for user's data - both Yahoo and Microsoft handed it over without batting an eyelid. Google refused, and took it to court."

Good point, and congrats to Google.
But why didn't they also care for the democratic rights of the Chinese people to get access to free and critical information too?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE
by Kroc on Thu 17th May 2007 19:45 in reply to "RE[2]: too late"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

That is simply Chinese law - Google didn't fold to government pressure, they folded to their own pressure not to be left out in the fastest growing economy in the world. Imagine millions of people growing up only on Yahoo? They'd have little inclination later in life to use Google services.

And even then, Google's china page stated when searches were being restricted, to aid the user. So they didn't do too bad, given the laws they had to abide by.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE
by irbis on Thu 17th May 2007 20:10 in reply to "RE"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

"That is simply Chinese law"

It was also law in Nazi Germany to persecute Jews and other such people. And guess what, some non-German international companies helped them in that mission too by selling equipment etc... Internationally accepted human rights should always be valued more than local laws that can be wrong too, especially in totalitarian countries.

"not to be left out in the fastest growing economy in the world"

In other words: money mattered more than human rights.

However, as I already said earlier, I agree that Google is not particularly "bad", especially when compared to many other companies.

But it just always pisses me off when I notice how lots of people are ready to sell human rights and other high ideals (that make this world a much better place to live for us all) just to get more money for themselves. If people just said "no" to totalitarian rulers willing to use them in their plans instead of "yes, sir, I'll ge glad to do whatever you wish", dictators would have much less chances to rule, and we would have avoided many bad things in history.

Reply Parent Score: 3