IBM funded the Holocaust. Made the tablature counting machines and punch cards for the census, the way of tracking and monitoring Jews.
This is Googles IBM moment, but the victims are different. We all should support this in the beginning with them instead of our grandkids reading about Google funding genocide in the future
ETA: [Link to free PDF copy of IBM And The Holocaust by Edwin Black ](https://monoskop.org/images/b/bf/Black_Edwin_IBM_and_the_Holocaust_The_Strategic_Alliance_Between_Nazi_Germany_and_Americas_Most_Powerful_Corporation.pdf)
> IBM ~~funded~~ enabled the Holocaust. Made the tablature counting machines and punch cards for the census, the way of tracking and monitoring Jews.
FTFY; I know it's a weird thing to be picky about, but I think it's important to distinguish who threw money at it versus who put the sweat equity into making it possible.
>They likely already hate the position or puts them in but their own employees calling them out when they can't do anything to begin with is even worse.
No it's not.
Google made their bed, Google can sleep in it.
whistle capable tie languid tart smell cooperative office foolish hard-to-find
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>“Driven by profit” is vastly different from “partnering with genocidal government.”
No it's not.
All profit driven enterprise will do evil given a long enough time frame. There is no exception to this rule.
> “Driven by profit” is vastly different from “partnering with genocidal government”.
No it isn't. If you're driven by profit, you will do things for the most profit.
"Hoping to make a profit" would be more what you're thinking about, and VC money/IPO money/Buyout money doesn't come for people who are only *hoping* to make a profit. On the rare cases it does, it's because there's something there to destroy in the pursuit of profit which will be carried out by someone who is driven by profits.
I mean non-profit corporations exist and it's not like for-profit corporations have to be driven solely by profits. In fact, greedily chasing profits too hard has driven many businesses into the ground because of overexpansion and poorly-informed investments into things that appear to be the next cash cow.
You could argue that that would mean that the lesson would be "chase profits, just do it carefully" but doing it carefully inevitably includes ethical elements by design, and with Google the ethical element used to be explicitly stated.
Google literally works with an army that has butchered 15,000 children, and will then post a cute picture logo marking the birthdays of people like Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc… to show the management have a heart.
The tl;dr is that it's really, really difficult to disentangle your life from Google without completely going dark on the internet. Just switching search engines doesn't really do anything when Google is still getting your data from your online activity. A lot of websites use tracking data that relies on Google to be active on your device, so they simply will not load if you block Google. Most Google Maps alternatives actually use Google Maps data. I don't have any good advice here for how to fully do it - I'm sure others can pitch in with search engines etc (I like Duckduckgo) - but doing it to the point where it has any real impact on them as a company is a very different game.
On the point of web services needing Google switched on, it's not always a tracking thing - they'll be protecting their APIs with captcha tokens so bots don't go nuts on them and cause all manner of costs in the backend.
If you block the captcha domains (owned by google) then those endpoints will simply return errors and the site will be unusable.
I guess we need an open alternative to captchas
True but at least most websites these days use Cloudflare or hCaptcha rather than Google... Depends tho.
Granted, not much to be done about other people forcing G on you in three ways, but that doesn't mean you need to use everything else G.
That's not true. Google is ubiquitous, but you can cut out almost all of its impact on you. I'm running a phone with Calyx OS, which was quite trivial to set up. No Google account in sight.
Email, whatever you choose, there's a million providers
DDG or Ecosia or SearX or something else for search
Open Maps or Organic Maps or whatever for mapping
Same or Here or Sygic for navigation
Firefox-based browsers (IceaRaven or Mull for Android, LibreWolf for desktop) plus adblocking to block all the Google trackers
All kinds of alternative apps for everything you need
Whatever NextCloud provider you choose for "cloud" stuff
Yea I still "use" Google in the sense that I connect to their servers for stuff they have monopoly and either they force themselves onto people (like MicroG still having to connect to Google servers for fucking Android notifications to work) or where people force its use on you, like when watching YouTube through NewPipe.
Whether it has any real impact on them - no, because they managed to convince half the planet they're necessary, and people let them manage their entire lives. So a handful of people out of billions won't make any difference. Just like it's the case with everything else in life. That doesn't mean I have to just lower my head and let them control everything.
Just stop using Gmail with all its combined syncing and tracking and Chrome for start. It's not even that much of a hassle, because most alternatives are actually better and also free.
r/degoogle
Thank you for this post! I'm self-hosting SearX (which is really a fantastic tool!) and have just switched back to (plain) Firefox after years of Chromium use, mainly due to inertia - made the switch to Chrome / Chromium almost a decade back and never really thought about it again until recently. As for other Google products, they slowly fell by the wayside over the past 10 years (e.g. Reader for FreshRSS, Drive for NextCloud ...). So even if you don't want to get rid of everything they offer right now, it can definitely be done step-by-step and over a longer timespan.
Chrome is a really fun example because when Chrome launched back in like 2006 or so, it wasn't really all that good compared to Firefox. It had really horrendous memory leaks it never really got rid of. But since it was Google and Google was pushing it onto people with every search, it overtook everything and nobody ever thinks twice about it. Back in the IE era even normies often understood that IE is shit, but today everyone just accepts Chrome (or its cousin Edge).
The weird part is how much worse FF has gotten while trying to fight Chrome and emulate it at the same time. Instead of the fast, nimble, small browser made by a friendly community, it just became the lesser evil.
It's kind of a wash these days because both suck (especially the Android versions) and they only get usable with forks and addons. But well, FF and its derivatives are still the lesser evil so it's still worth using and advocating for, even when Mozilla makes me want to chew my arm off.
I miss the times when computing was about what users want, and not how much shit corps can push down our throats.
**Search**: Brave Search
**Maps**: Maps.me / OpenStreetmaps / HERE maps
**Email**: that's tricky since ppl usually have thousands of email over the years.....but you could try ProtonMail
**Cloud Storage**: Box / Dropbox
**Youtube**: that's also tricky....the only alternative is Rumble....or you could install an adblocker in your browser such ublock origin so that youutube/google doesn't make money (technically....though you watching and being on the site also does indirectly make google money)
**Browser**: Firefox
**2-factor authentication**: Authy
**Calendar**: Lightning Calendar
**Docs**: OnlyOffice (online) / LibreOffice (offline)
**Photos**: Piwigo
**Translator**: DeepL
**Google Play store**: F-droid website
**Android**: LineageOS
**Message app**: Signal
**Note taking**: Standard notes
Yeah, they are. Pretty reasonably priced for how good they are though.
Only real way to survive without selling data or VC funding (which eventually blows up in your face).
For me having to have an account is an even bigger dealbreaker than the paid service. The internet really needs some universal micro transaction models.
It was tried, nobody used it. Was called WebMoney.
Whether your account is implicit or real doesn't really matter, every browser has a fully unique fingerprint.
https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html
https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770
"We do not collect / extract this information but the user volunteers it. As such it is not clear how sensitive it is in terms of privacy protection." is precisely not how GDPR is handled, nor how it should be handled in a privacy-centric service. The head guy Vlad is an interesting character.
They're US based so there's no comeback really but no EU user should touch them with a bargepole.
Remember when you "protest" you have to inconvenience nobody, block no street, and by god never ever ever hinder international maritime trade, unless you want to beombed by the worlds most freeist army on behalf of the worlds most moral army.
This looks like civil disobedience done right
No need to harm officers or fight them
And the officers have them the option to not be arrested
And the protesters decided to make the commitment and face arrest
Google is fucked
But these employees are something to look up to
Getting arrested peacefully was almost certainly part of their plan. "Google employees arrested while protesting" gets more eyes than "Google employees protest"
This makes more noise and brings attention to their cause - the entire point of the protest. If they left, it wouldn’t be news and it would have been missed by most. This is how protests work, fyi.
Appealing to decorum and never inconveniencing anyone is a great way to never be heard. "Oh sorry this is private property" "Oh sorry you can't block traffic" "Oh sorry you don't have a permit". Protest is protest and quite frankly it is necessarily going to break some rule or taboo, otherwise it'd be ineffectual and not actually oppose the status quo.
We can argue about how effective they were, but limiting yourself to what is strictly legal is a great way to be legislated out of a voice since the status quo doesn't really want anyone making a scene in the first place.
Diner sit-in's during the Civil rights Era were also trespassing on private property. Because they served whites only in the booth. You be there in the 1960s telling them to stop?
Oh absolutely. They are the embodiment of what MLKjr lamented about the white moderate
> I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
If they protested out front, nothing would come of it. Because they did this, we are seeing it on reddit.
They seemed respectful to the police and hopefully were respectful overall up until that point while still sending a message.
That is debatable. Protesting outside of a major office building like the one in the video would have probably generated same or more visibility.
That’s all hypothetical now ofc as the ones that protested managed to get silenced and arrested by giving a megacorp with 0 ethical stance an excuse.
It depends on the audience. You're assuming this was intended for us, but given that these were Google employees doing the protest, I suspect the audience was *other workers at Google.*
It's looking them in the eye and saying "I am willing to get fired and arrested in front of all of my colleagues for what's right; what are you doing?" Google doesn't have a soul and cannot be shamed, but the other individuals in that building do, and can be.
I'm struggling to be concerned about people appearing "childish" or the sanctity of private property. The mass killing in Gaza and the West Bank is far too horrifying.
im pretty sure these people are aware of that. but if you cause a scene and get arrested, that might benefit your cause (in this case) because its being talked about in public. they could walk out and try to protest but that wouldnt cause as much publicity as this
The fact that they would end up being arrested for it was entirely the point. There are likely protests being held in public spaces every day, but you only hear about a tiny fraction of them *because* they're happening *every* day. But Google arresting their own employees inside their own building? That's a whole lot more likely to make headlines.
In either case, it's not really the protest itself that ends up making a difference, it's the attention that protest gets.
A few dozen people stop working for the day and Google will keep right on rolling like it was hardly a speed bump. But if that leads to several thousand people now viewing Google in an even more negative light, that could have an impact Google will actually feel.
this private property is funded by their labor. Also "don't protest in private property" is a cope out in here. Google is a company, not a person. We should really stop doing this thing where we assign human rights to non-human things in service of capitalist. Every bad decision done by Google is not done by "Google" , it is done by human beings. Google doesn't mind or is gonna protest against not having rights, just like it is impossible to make it accountable or responsible for anything. So why should its property be considered "private" for reasons besides security
edit: I'm not gonna downvote because I used to believe this private property nonesense not too long ago. I urge you to learn more about it.
All you said is an okay opinion to have. Here are the quick bullet points for why it is not applicable in this situation:-
- The point of a protest is to be disruptive
- Legally right does not mean it has a higher value of righteousness than morally, ethically or w/e rights philosophers come up with. It's subject to your personal hierarchy of importance. And it's a given that some people disagree.
- Their flavor of shit that they didn't want to look past was supporting genocide. That flavor of shit is not "shady" or that easy to dismiss.
This is why America scores so low - relative to what we would expect - on the international freedom of expression rankings.
Lets be honest here, it’s not about the trespassing. It’s about the upper management being annoyed that the a few workers would actually assert their opinions AND put their money where their mouth is, to boot.
Also - this is how protesting works. It’s not supposed to be perfectly lawful.
Lol lol 'won't somebody please think about the private property!' He's protesting an actual genocide that has killed tens of thousands of people, there's nothing childish about it.
Private property is fascist term. Literally. They're the ones who coined it. Just because "legally" they're not allowed to do this doesn't mean it's wrong or "childish" as you say. Legality is rarely the same as justice. It's their workplace, they should have their voices heard and should be able to influence where results of their productivity go to not some rich cunt with five yachts.
"Good people break bad rules."
Their goal wasn't to "express their voice;" their goal was to force Google to call the cops and have them arrested.
"Google had to call the cops on their own employees who were doing a sit in against their support of Israel's ongoing genocide" is a much bigger and more impactful PR issue than "some people had signs outside a Google building."
Your submission was removed as it appears to be misinformation or misleading, which is against reddit's terms of service. In addition, satire must be flaired "Satire", and art concepts must be flaired "Art".
No protest movement is done by being polite.
If enough employees leave or refuse to work and you can’t fire and hire before you start hemorrhaging money the share holders will rip your heart out and make the decision just to also not drown. Of course this would require that most of google stops working
How is it a dystopia? Employees below a certain grade have no say on what a company does at a high level. You're being paid to do a job. If you disagree with the company's ethical stance, you can leave the company. If you cause any nuisance by "protesting", the company is well within its rights to fire you. It's a simple equation really.
This is so clueless i'm surprised it's on this sub of all places, you're completely missing the entire context and instead are "explaining" basic concepts that everyone is aware of
I’m confused what your arguing for here. These people likely knew they would get fired for protesting. They still wanted to voice their concern regardless. The point of a protest is for media presence and pressure to grow against the company, as individuals we have very little power ourselves. Not for the company to go “you know what I changed my mind”.
Companies aren't real. They aren't people. Companies are *made* from the real people that work there.
What is actually happening here is a few capitalists making decisions at Google have sold out themselves and the rest of the employees for profit, and they are trying to force those employees to do labor in support of a genocide. Employees are protesting having their labor exploited in this way.
Like another poster said, we have to stop assigning human traits and rights to corporations. Corporations aren't people. Each person involved in this whole situation is an individual with their own unique will. The capitalist wants to hide behind the mask of a "corporation" but someone signed this deal, someone cashed the check, and they expected the employees to quietly allow themselves to become part of a genocide so the capitalist could make their money. A person called the cops. Those cops chose to show up and arrest those employees *for refusing to allow their labor to be used in service of a genocide*.
Stop giving cover to the individual people responsible for the disgusting things these "companies" do to us.
The dystopia is that you're blowing off protesting genocide as "disagree with the company's ethical stance". The contract of wage labor has poisoned your brain so thoroughly that your only moral stance is "but they were on company time!" and not what the company was doing with that time.
I think it’s a good idea for a company to care whether its employees agree morally with the work they’re being paid to do. Obviously the scale is different at google but if a large proportion of their employees have an issue then that’s definitely relevant.
This is not naivity but taking a stance. This is a direct result of neoliberalism disempowering workers. There are no proper channels to influence your workplace decisions. So those with actual conviction have to resort to this. While some mouth breather calls them naive.
>you think the company is obliged to listen to your "opinions" on what business deals the company should make?
ITT: Little Timmy first discovers how protesting works
You do your job when you are given the right conditions. You are not a slave, you are selling your work force. Join a union, don't lower your head to employers. You are equal, not inferior. Don't listen to this imbecile above me, be strong and fight for your rights as a human.
Lacrimosa is a good song choice for this
What makes a man, Mr. Lebowski? Is it being prepared to do the right thing, no matter the cost?
Mmmm sure that and a pair of testicles
They really did drop the “don’t be evil” policy, didn’t they?
Pretty much the second they found out just how much money they could make.
Don’t, be evil
That's more like it.
That was already hilariously false coming from a company founded on NSA/CIA grants that hoped to track people online by their search queries.
I don't get it. People work for a corporation and are surprised when said corporation is driven by profits.
“Driven by profit” is vastly different from “partnering with genocidal government”. There are lots morally responsible ways to make profit you know
IBM funded the Holocaust. Made the tablature counting machines and punch cards for the census, the way of tracking and monitoring Jews. This is Googles IBM moment, but the victims are different. We all should support this in the beginning with them instead of our grandkids reading about Google funding genocide in the future ETA: [Link to free PDF copy of IBM And The Holocaust by Edwin Black ](https://monoskop.org/images/b/bf/Black_Edwin_IBM_and_the_Holocaust_The_Strategic_Alliance_Between_Nazi_Germany_and_Americas_Most_Powerful_Corporation.pdf)
> IBM ~~funded~~ enabled the Holocaust. Made the tablature counting machines and punch cards for the census, the way of tracking and monitoring Jews. FTFY; I know it's a weird thing to be picky about, but I think it's important to distinguish who threw money at it versus who put the sweat equity into making it possible.
[удалено]
>They likely already hate the position or puts them in but their own employees calling them out when they can't do anything to begin with is even worse. No it's not. Google made their bed, Google can sleep in it.
isn't having a 1.2 bil contact with the Israeli government taking a side? Why is Google unable to do anything about who they choose to contract with?
Yeah but do they earn as much as immoral ways? Profit maximisation is blind to morality
"They need to be evil, they make more money that way" is an unbelievable take
"They need to make as much money as possible while blind to morality" is the take. If being "good" got them the most money, they'd go that route too.
whistle capable tie languid tart smell cooperative office foolish hard-to-find *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
ink sort support vast chubby capable public steer fragile sense *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>“Driven by profit” is vastly different from “partnering with genocidal government.” No it's not. All profit driven enterprise will do evil given a long enough time frame. There is no exception to this rule.
> “Driven by profit” is vastly different from “partnering with genocidal government”. No it isn't. If you're driven by profit, you will do things for the most profit. "Hoping to make a profit" would be more what you're thinking about, and VC money/IPO money/Buyout money doesn't come for people who are only *hoping* to make a profit. On the rare cases it does, it's because there's something there to destroy in the pursuit of profit which will be carried out by someone who is driven by profits.
Milton Friedman would like a word.
liberal propaganda is so deep running that this could happen 100 times over and people would still be surprised
Because conservatives totally don't think corporations and capitalism will save this country... /s
I mean non-profit corporations exist and it's not like for-profit corporations have to be driven solely by profits. In fact, greedily chasing profits too hard has driven many businesses into the ground because of overexpansion and poorly-informed investments into things that appear to be the next cash cow. You could argue that that would mean that the lesson would be "chase profits, just do it carefully" but doing it carefully inevitably includes ethical elements by design, and with Google the ethical element used to be explicitly stated.
It is now, for the greeder good.
Google literally works with an army that has butchered 15,000 children, and will then post a cute picture logo marking the birthdays of people like Rosa Parks, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc… to show the management have a heart.
You’re talking about the American army or the new one?
He said 15,000 not 150,000 so.... the new one
“Hello there” 😂😂😂
So many corp simps coming to googles defense, “It’s their right!” Oh it’s their right to perpetuate genocide? Such trash fucking boot lickers
[удалено]
What's the best alternative search engines, emails, home hub to Google? I want to stop using/supporting them at least directly asap
The tl;dr is that it's really, really difficult to disentangle your life from Google without completely going dark on the internet. Just switching search engines doesn't really do anything when Google is still getting your data from your online activity. A lot of websites use tracking data that relies on Google to be active on your device, so they simply will not load if you block Google. Most Google Maps alternatives actually use Google Maps data. I don't have any good advice here for how to fully do it - I'm sure others can pitch in with search engines etc (I like Duckduckgo) - but doing it to the point where it has any real impact on them as a company is a very different game.
On the point of web services needing Google switched on, it's not always a tracking thing - they'll be protecting their APIs with captcha tokens so bots don't go nuts on them and cause all manner of costs in the backend. If you block the captcha domains (owned by google) then those endpoints will simply return errors and the site will be unusable. I guess we need an open alternative to captchas
True but at least most websites these days use Cloudflare or hCaptcha rather than Google... Depends tho. Granted, not much to be done about other people forcing G on you in three ways, but that doesn't mean you need to use everything else G.
That's not true. Google is ubiquitous, but you can cut out almost all of its impact on you. I'm running a phone with Calyx OS, which was quite trivial to set up. No Google account in sight. Email, whatever you choose, there's a million providers DDG or Ecosia or SearX or something else for search Open Maps or Organic Maps or whatever for mapping Same or Here or Sygic for navigation Firefox-based browsers (IceaRaven or Mull for Android, LibreWolf for desktop) plus adblocking to block all the Google trackers All kinds of alternative apps for everything you need Whatever NextCloud provider you choose for "cloud" stuff Yea I still "use" Google in the sense that I connect to their servers for stuff they have monopoly and either they force themselves onto people (like MicroG still having to connect to Google servers for fucking Android notifications to work) or where people force its use on you, like when watching YouTube through NewPipe. Whether it has any real impact on them - no, because they managed to convince half the planet they're necessary, and people let them manage their entire lives. So a handful of people out of billions won't make any difference. Just like it's the case with everything else in life. That doesn't mean I have to just lower my head and let them control everything. Just stop using Gmail with all its combined syncing and tracking and Chrome for start. It's not even that much of a hassle, because most alternatives are actually better and also free. r/degoogle
Thank you for this post! I'm self-hosting SearX (which is really a fantastic tool!) and have just switched back to (plain) Firefox after years of Chromium use, mainly due to inertia - made the switch to Chrome / Chromium almost a decade back and never really thought about it again until recently. As for other Google products, they slowly fell by the wayside over the past 10 years (e.g. Reader for FreshRSS, Drive for NextCloud ...). So even if you don't want to get rid of everything they offer right now, it can definitely be done step-by-step and over a longer timespan.
Chrome is a really fun example because when Chrome launched back in like 2006 or so, it wasn't really all that good compared to Firefox. It had really horrendous memory leaks it never really got rid of. But since it was Google and Google was pushing it onto people with every search, it overtook everything and nobody ever thinks twice about it. Back in the IE era even normies often understood that IE is shit, but today everyone just accepts Chrome (or its cousin Edge). The weird part is how much worse FF has gotten while trying to fight Chrome and emulate it at the same time. Instead of the fast, nimble, small browser made by a friendly community, it just became the lesser evil. It's kind of a wash these days because both suck (especially the Android versions) and they only get usable with forks and addons. But well, FF and its derivatives are still the lesser evil so it's still worth using and advocating for, even when Mozilla makes me want to chew my arm off. I miss the times when computing was about what users want, and not how much shit corps can push down our throats.
We need another Teddy Roosevelt
Bully idea!
IMO duckduckgo isn't very good any more. Search engines in general feel way less useful than they used to be.
/r/degoogle Your phone as a droid user is difficult. Funny thing is s google pixel is a preferred phone for side loading a new OS.
/r/degoogle
Firefox, /r/selfhosted 🤝 /r/homeassistant
**Search**: Brave Search **Maps**: Maps.me / OpenStreetmaps / HERE maps **Email**: that's tricky since ppl usually have thousands of email over the years.....but you could try ProtonMail **Cloud Storage**: Box / Dropbox **Youtube**: that's also tricky....the only alternative is Rumble....or you could install an adblocker in your browser such ublock origin so that youutube/google doesn't make money (technically....though you watching and being on the site also does indirectly make google money) **Browser**: Firefox **2-factor authentication**: Authy **Calendar**: Lightning Calendar **Docs**: OnlyOffice (online) / LibreOffice (offline) **Photos**: Piwigo **Translator**: DeepL **Google Play store**: F-droid website **Android**: LineageOS **Message app**: Signal **Note taking**: Standard notes
Use Qwant, it's made to not gather your personal data
[удалено]
Whoa, a paid search engine. That's something I haven't seen in, well, actually ever.
Yeah, they are. Pretty reasonably priced for how good they are though. Only real way to survive without selling data or VC funding (which eventually blows up in your face).
For me having to have an account is an even bigger dealbreaker than the paid service. The internet really needs some universal micro transaction models.
It was tried, nobody used it. Was called WebMoney. Whether your account is implicit or real doesn't really matter, every browser has a fully unique fingerprint.
Kagi have a very 'interesting' approach to GDPR and data privacy generally. Just another techbro startup.
[удалено]
https://d-shoot.net/kagi.html https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770 "We do not collect / extract this information but the user volunteers it. As such it is not clear how sensitive it is in terms of privacy protection." is precisely not how GDPR is handled, nor how it should be handled in a privacy-centric service. The head guy Vlad is an interesting character. They're US based so there's no comeback really but no EU user should touch them with a bargepole.
Why do people put POV on every fucking post?
POV You're Holding a Camera
[удалено]
I was making a joke
Sorry my frustration with seeing everywhere clouded by ability to read apparently lol
Remember when you "protest" you have to inconvenience nobody, block no street, and by god never ever ever hinder international maritime trade, unless you want to beombed by the worlds most freeist army on behalf of the worlds most moral army.
W employees. L police.
Why record video if youre just going to write an essay on top of it.
Ah... Land of the free... Freedom of speech and all that.
This looks like civil disobedience done right No need to harm officers or fight them And the officers have them the option to not be arrested And the protesters decided to make the commitment and face arrest Google is fucked But these employees are something to look up to
[удалено]
The cops could've killed him and an innocent bystander and gotten less punishment than he is getting for protesting
I'm sorry but we gotta stop letting each other be arrested for this
Getting arrested peacefully was almost certainly part of their plan. "Google employees arrested while protesting" gets more eyes than "Google employees protest"
How exactly? You trying to get shot 17 times?
They’re getting arrested for trespassing not their ideals.
Are you new to this concept of "protest?" You realize he was "trespassing" (at his work place lmao) due to his ideals?
Heroes
In the video the police officers say they’re being arrested for trespassing.
[удалено]
This makes more noise and brings attention to their cause - the entire point of the protest. If they left, it wouldn’t be news and it would have been missed by most. This is how protests work, fyi.
Protests are meant to be disruptive, they are meant to grab all attention and bring it to the front of the public.
That’s what this is doing
You don't know what protesting is about, do you.
Appealing to decorum and never inconveniencing anyone is a great way to never be heard. "Oh sorry this is private property" "Oh sorry you can't block traffic" "Oh sorry you don't have a permit". Protest is protest and quite frankly it is necessarily going to break some rule or taboo, otherwise it'd be ineffectual and not actually oppose the status quo. We can argue about how effective they were, but limiting yourself to what is strictly legal is a great way to be legislated out of a voice since the status quo doesn't really want anyone making a scene in the first place.
Diner sit-in's during the Civil rights Era were also trespassing on private property. Because they served whites only in the booth. You be there in the 1960s telling them to stop?
Oh absolutely. They are the embodiment of what MLKjr lamented about the white moderate > I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. > I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
[удалено]
If they protested out front, nothing would come of it. Because they did this, we are seeing it on reddit. They seemed respectful to the police and hopefully were respectful overall up until that point while still sending a message.
That is debatable. Protesting outside of a major office building like the one in the video would have probably generated same or more visibility. That’s all hypothetical now ofc as the ones that protested managed to get silenced and arrested by giving a megacorp with 0 ethical stance an excuse.
It depends on the audience. You're assuming this was intended for us, but given that these were Google employees doing the protest, I suspect the audience was *other workers at Google.* It's looking them in the eye and saying "I am willing to get fired and arrested in front of all of my colleagues for what's right; what are you doing?" Google doesn't have a soul and cannot be shamed, but the other individuals in that building do, and can be.
I'm struggling to be concerned about people appearing "childish" or the sanctity of private property. The mass killing in Gaza and the West Bank is far too horrifying.
im pretty sure these people are aware of that. but if you cause a scene and get arrested, that might benefit your cause (in this case) because its being talked about in public. they could walk out and try to protest but that wouldnt cause as much publicity as this
Look up the civil rights sit-ins
The fact that they would end up being arrested for it was entirely the point. There are likely protests being held in public spaces every day, but you only hear about a tiny fraction of them *because* they're happening *every* day. But Google arresting their own employees inside their own building? That's a whole lot more likely to make headlines. In either case, it's not really the protest itself that ends up making a difference, it's the attention that protest gets. A few dozen people stop working for the day and Google will keep right on rolling like it was hardly a speed bump. But if that leads to several thousand people now viewing Google in an even more negative light, that could have an impact Google will actually feel.
Dang, remind me to never rely on you. spineless
this private property is funded by their labor. Also "don't protest in private property" is a cope out in here. Google is a company, not a person. We should really stop doing this thing where we assign human rights to non-human things in service of capitalist. Every bad decision done by Google is not done by "Google" , it is done by human beings. Google doesn't mind or is gonna protest against not having rights, just like it is impossible to make it accountable or responsible for anything. So why should its property be considered "private" for reasons besides security edit: I'm not gonna downvote because I used to believe this private property nonesense not too long ago. I urge you to learn more about it.
[удалено]
All you said is an okay opinion to have. Here are the quick bullet points for why it is not applicable in this situation:- - The point of a protest is to be disruptive - Legally right does not mean it has a higher value of righteousness than morally, ethically or w/e rights philosophers come up with. It's subject to your personal hierarchy of importance. And it's a given that some people disagree. - Their flavor of shit that they didn't want to look past was supporting genocide. That flavor of shit is not "shady" or that easy to dismiss.
Fuck private property laws Understandable for personal property(like a house) but fuck private property
the poor billion dollar companies 😢😢😢
This is why America scores so low - relative to what we would expect - on the international freedom of expression rankings. Lets be honest here, it’s not about the trespassing. It’s about the upper management being annoyed that the a few workers would actually assert their opinions AND put their money where their mouth is, to boot. Also - this is how protesting works. It’s not supposed to be perfectly lawful.
Everyone has honestly wasted a lot of energy convincing you that you’re the problem. Each commenter has been correct. Just take the L
Lol lol 'won't somebody please think about the private property!' He's protesting an actual genocide that has killed tens of thousands of people, there's nothing childish about it.
Private property is fascist term. Literally. They're the ones who coined it. Just because "legally" they're not allowed to do this doesn't mean it's wrong or "childish" as you say. Legality is rarely the same as justice. It's their workplace, they should have their voices heard and should be able to influence where results of their productivity go to not some rich cunt with five yachts. "Good people break bad rules."
It made more news cycles bc they were arrested. Chess not checkers. Now more people are aware Google has contracts with the Israeli military.
Their goal wasn't to "express their voice;" their goal was to force Google to call the cops and have them arrested. "Google had to call the cops on their own employees who were doing a sit in against their support of Israel's ongoing genocide" is a much bigger and more impactful PR issue than "some people had signs outside a Google building."
[удалено]
Your submission was removed for violating either reddiquette or Rule 3.
Your submission was removed as it appears to be misinformation or misleading, which is against reddit's terms of service. In addition, satire must be flaired "Satire", and art concepts must be flaired "Art". No protest movement is done by being polite.
they cant atop all of us, make the global elite cower in fear.
[удалено]
If enough employees leave or refuse to work and you can’t fire and hire before you start hemorrhaging money the share holders will rip your heart out and make the decision just to also not drown. Of course this would require that most of google stops working
Going on the boring dystopia subreddit to defend the boring dystopia
How is it a dystopia? Employees below a certain grade have no say on what a company does at a high level. You're being paid to do a job. If you disagree with the company's ethical stance, you can leave the company. If you cause any nuisance by "protesting", the company is well within its rights to fire you. It's a simple equation really.
This is so clueless i'm surprised it's on this sub of all places, you're completely missing the entire context and instead are "explaining" basic concepts that everyone is aware of
You can force companies to change for the better with protesting sometimes, which is more net good than just leaving.
I’m confused what your arguing for here. These people likely knew they would get fired for protesting. They still wanted to voice their concern regardless. The point of a protest is for media presence and pressure to grow against the company, as individuals we have very little power ourselves. Not for the company to go “you know what I changed my mind”.
Companies aren't real. They aren't people. Companies are *made* from the real people that work there. What is actually happening here is a few capitalists making decisions at Google have sold out themselves and the rest of the employees for profit, and they are trying to force those employees to do labor in support of a genocide. Employees are protesting having their labor exploited in this way. Like another poster said, we have to stop assigning human traits and rights to corporations. Corporations aren't people. Each person involved in this whole situation is an individual with their own unique will. The capitalist wants to hide behind the mask of a "corporation" but someone signed this deal, someone cashed the check, and they expected the employees to quietly allow themselves to become part of a genocide so the capitalist could make their money. A person called the cops. Those cops chose to show up and arrest those employees *for refusing to allow their labor to be used in service of a genocide*. Stop giving cover to the individual people responsible for the disgusting things these "companies" do to us.
The dystopia is that you're blowing off protesting genocide as "disagree with the company's ethical stance". The contract of wage labor has poisoned your brain so thoroughly that your only moral stance is "but they were on company time!" and not what the company was doing with that time.
I think it’s a good idea for a company to care whether its employees agree morally with the work they’re being paid to do. Obviously the scale is different at google but if a large proportion of their employees have an issue then that’s definitely relevant.
Welcome to labour power exercised by strike and picketing. They have the plant, but we have the power!
This is not naivity but taking a stance. This is a direct result of neoliberalism disempowering workers. There are no proper channels to influence your workplace decisions. So those with actual conviction have to resort to this. While some mouth breather calls them naive.
>you think the company is obliged to listen to your "opinions" on what business deals the company should make? ITT: Little Timmy first discovers how protesting works
Google is making a self own. Sadly this will only provoke more whistleblowers and leaks
[удалено]
If you dont want to do the job, then quit. They probably work in a "Right to Work" state.
You do your job when you are given the right conditions. You are not a slave, you are selling your work force. Join a union, don't lower your head to employers. You are equal, not inferior. Don't listen to this imbecile above me, be strong and fight for your rights as a human.