We can’t compromise our principles for gain. How can we say we’re all about spreading freedom while rolling over on censorship requests from dictatorships? I’m glad to see someone stand up to this crap.
Jimmy Wales, one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to Time magazine, challenged other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing.
Wikipedia, a hugely popular reference tool in the West, has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia.
Three cheers for Wikipedia, we need more companies to show some spine. If we all stuck together the Chinese couldn’t pull it off to begin with.
Honestly what stupid responses to my comment!
Stupid in what way? It is even more stupid to simply throw out such an idiotic comment. If you want to criticize, criticize. However, to insult without reason is ignorance. If you have something against the responses to your comment, a more intelligent reply would be a rebuttal.
Milo thinks the replies to his post are stupid due to the fact that they questioned it or disagreed with it. You see while Smartalix’s comments in reply in post #22 to Milo’s comment in post #21 are those of a mature intelligent adult that almost anyone of the people who read it can understand they are in error. You see adults talk differently when speaking to other adults as opposed to talking to children or those who are of diminished mental capacities. That is the error that Smartalix and others have made. The following is what Milo wished to see in response.
“Milo you are so smart! Yes you are! Coochy coochy coo! Yes you are smart! My big smart fella! Coochy coochy coo! Of course it puts google in a better light! I will say whatever makes my special little fella happy! Coochy coochy coo! woogy woogy!”
John
Stupid because it should be obvious that the people making them didn’t understand what I wrote. The 2 replies above compounding the original mistake by revealing that they still haven’t.
John makes himself look even stupider yet by basing his response on what I think, which he can’t know.
Milo,
In this discussion I have leaned to your side while disagreeing with several people. Several others have also leaned in your direction. Now, why would you be upset that not everyone agrees with you. Even if I don’t agree, there have been several questions posed or thoughts brought up that are very worthy of discussion.
The greatest joy in these discussions shouldn’t be winning the argument. It should be in the learning from what others have to add to the discussion. Not every idea will be a gem, but there are enough to make it worth the effort.
Milo,
Then please enlighten us. We can only take your comments on face value. If we don’t understand what you’re trying to say it’s because you aren’t expressing yourself.
BTW, I posted this, not John.
You’re the one throwing insults around. Where in any of my comments did I insult you? Your childish behavior only makes you the one looking stupid.
So, back to your original comment:
“Wikipedia has no profit to lose. Does this now put Google in a better light? It does for me. ”
Please explain what you really mean and I will be more than happy to address that point. Since I wasn’t able to get it the first time please explain your point clearly so I don’t miss it this time.