Google Chooses Not to Be Evil
by KTKSeptember 27th, 2008
From Google’s company blog:
Our position on California’s No on 8 campaign
As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions — Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay — we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.
However, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.
Posted by Sergey Brin, Co-founder & President, Technology
Good goin’, Google.
Categories: Bloggin, Culture, General, Legal Issues, News & Current Events, Politics, Privacy, Religion, Technology |
Now, if only they’d stop being evil on matters they actually hold actual influence on — like the fundamental rights to privacy that underlie the biggest real advance that the gay rights movement has had in centuries, or the fundamental right to keep and bear arms that Google has repeatedly and consistently demonstrated opposition to.
But, hey, one out of thirty-or-so isn’t bad. Well, except from a percentage viewpoint.
Only fucking you can attempt that to relate the right to bear arms to the most prominent issues facing the homosexual communities. …maybe fashion-wise.
Nigga please, like short sleeves I bear (bare) arms” - Jay-Z, Brooklyn’s Finest
I think you’ve got an extra pronoun in there, or are missing a period. If I parsed the sentence incorrectly, please correct me.
Google has repeatedly and regularly shown little regard for the right to privacy — searches and the IP addresses they come from are stored for 18 months when even AOL and Yahoo! scrap the stuff after a year, as well as not considering ‘private’ a lot of information other web search engines do — or the right to bear arms — infamously stripping AdSense from pro-gun sites including one Mr. tgirsch posts on, prohibiting the use of AdWords involving firearms, and prohibiting the use of Google Checkout for goods even remotely related to firearms.
For those of you that haven’t been paying attention, or think that getting a fucking permission slip from the federal is the biggest thing the homosexual communities need to be aware of, Lawrence v. Texas was decided less than five years ago, whose ability to overturn general sodomy laws relied in no small part on privacy concerns as much as on equal protection ones. It’s been less than two decades since Kentucky v. Wasson did the same on a smaller but more general scale on entirely privacy concerns.
Roughly 10% of all federally-reported hate crimes targeted men who self-identify as homosexual, and a further few percent target women who self-identify as homosexual. Nearly half of all individuals who self-identify as homosexual have been threatened with violence, and as many as 2% of all men who self-identify as homosexual are threatened with assault on a yearly basis. Thanks to the tendency of homosexual men to head toward liberal meccas (I’ve heard far too many people certain that they’re the only gay man in sixty miles centered in the midwest, and while it’s more perception than true, ‘out’ gay men are far more common in the NorthEast and California), they are as a social group both overwhelmingly disarmed and overwhelmingly targeted. It’s been a mere four weeks since Tony Randolph Hunter was beaten to death outside of a gay bar in Washington D.C.
Likewise, Google has actual influence on these matters. Informational technology privacy is a major aspect of modern privacy law, and quite a messy one. Google is the leader in this space; how they interact with the United States government and how they act internally will determine how this field grows. Google’s Blogger, AdWords, Checkout, and AdSense are capable of demonizing and providing disincentives about allowing truthful information about firearms to spread. The demonization of lawful firearm ownership is a major part of the trend against lawful gun ownership.
Meanwhile, Google’s ability to legitimately influence a vote two months away, on a matter which would not change their internal policies (Google does share most benefits from opposite-sex spouses to same-sex or opposite-sex partners, so thankfully no real hypocrisy here, although ironically it does discriminate against same-sex partners on FMLA-like leave, according to the HRC), does not strike me as a matter upon which it has an overwhelming ability to affect the meaningful debate.
I’m sorry, but whether you’re more interested in the “being gay” or “being” part of being a gay man, there’s bigger fish on the fryer, and Google’s been rather evil on both of them, albeit indirectly. They’re a corporation, and thus that’s a legal option for them, but that doesn’t give me a reason not to rant about it.
That’s doubly the case when someone who should know better happily and favorably quotes such laughable statements as “we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues” or appeals to equality. They’re a corporation, and they have the right to make stupid decisions or even jump up and down on rights Constitutionally recognized and granted, but I’ve got the right to bitch about such when people forget that they do so.
You’ve also got the right to make sense when you talk. Feel free.
I can’t even tell what issue you’re addressing, above, or how any of the several issues you mention relate to one another. Take a deep breath.
okay, then, allow me to try to “relate the right to bear arms to the most prominent issues facing the homosexual communities”, in response to digglah. homosexuals face a much greater than usual risk of violent crime; the closeting that results from the justified fear of such crime serves to perpetuate homophobia and inequality, preventing equal civil rights for homosexuals.
but armed gays don’t get bashed. equality is a good thing. equality of force, in order to make self defense credible and effective, is a great thing.
armed gays don’t get bashed
Just like armed inner-city youth don’t get shot. Oh, wait…
Thank you, Nomen Nescio. There’s also a relation in that gay men (and to a lesser degree, lesbian women) tend to live in areas where lawful ownership of firearms is especially demonized, making these individuals particularly effected by media formats that portray firearms ownership or self-defense as only an illegitimate thing. Google’s policy assists that environment.
The right-to-privacy issue is also highly relevant to gay and lesbian individuals; the very core of the matter is a consenting and private matter between two adults — until such time as the “proper and necessary” clause of the Constitution is given more than a pathetic glance, anything which reduces the expectation of privacy in a field helps make lawful statutes against homosexual conduct in that field.
KTK
My apologies. I’m not good at this sort of thing.
They are all social issues upon which Google has taken a noteworthy stance. They are all issues on which the Don’t Be Evil concept could have applied. They are all issues which have the opportunity to change the lives of gay men and lesbian women, as well as bisexuals of either gender. They are all prominent social concerns of our time.
They are also places where Google has taken an option despite their general stated lack of position. It’s nice to know they can occasionally pick something that is both politically popular in Menlo Park and Ann Arbor while being friendly to gay people at the same time, lauding them over a decision that amounts to raising a small flag when they’ve made much further-reaching and dangerous decisions…
Well, at the very least, it deserves being pointed out.
“Just like armed inner-city youth don’t get shot. Oh, wait…”
There’s a small difference between a gangster flashing a pistol as a show of power, and a would-be hate crime victim brandishing a pistol at some bigoted asshat who’s about to try to kick his head in.
Gatt:
First about FMLA and Google, assuming you’re looking at this, you’re reading it wrong. No gay-straight discrimination; both kinds of unmarried partners are not covered. There is a difference between married and un-married, which affects gays in places that this have discriminatory marriage laws, which does not include CA, where Google buys their insurance (not that that helps the rest of us).
As far as Google being anti-gun, it looks like its no more anti-gun than it is anti-beer or anti-e-gold (?). It’s not exactly “demonizing legal gun ownership” to consider them not safe for the kiddies.
Disclosure: I work for Google, but have nothing at all to do with their ads policies and in fact had to look them up myself. On the other hand, I think more people should own and keep guns, though I am okay with disallowing them to felons and having shall-issue permitting along with a fee up to 25% the cost of a Saturday night special.
FMLA-like leave is the legal obligation to provide 12 workweeks of unpaid leave over a 12 month period for several reasons related to childbirth, adoption, or serious medical care of a spouse or other close family member — I assume HRC’s data is about medical care of spouse leave rather than childbirth or adoption. I do not know of any attached insurance involved, although I’m not sure I’ve worked for a covered company since the law was enacted.
Given that (even in States where gay marriage is legal) gay marriage lags behind straight (I don’t mean this as a statement of morality, which I am not equipped to judge), this sort of behavior could be considered discriminatory in spirit, if not by text. Because Google operates in a state where gay marriage is not recognized, and operates with more than 50 employees in a 75-mile radius, that’s increasingly the case.
While I’m not a particular fan of the judiciary selecting what is and is not de facto discrimination, as an individual, I think it’s reasonable to point fingers. Due to the relatively low costs of following FMLA even for uncovered individuals, I’m honestly surprised that Google does not follow the matter.
Even from a more practical point, I think the discrimination between married and unmarried couples is a stupid idea — if there’s any costs involved, it results in an incentive to hire unmarried individuals, which is not a good social policy.
I tried to make specific note of the distinction of discrimination; my apologies for being unclear on the matter.
Google allows the use of AdWords involving champagne and wine, as well as those involving beer but not targeted at the United States — from my understanding of the matter, this is an aspect of United States local and state laws. Likewise, the commerce of e-gold is the sale of an object not owned or recognized as a reseller by the object’s lawful owner; in most of the United States, equal to sale of stolen goods.
The interstate sales of many firearms components, ammunition, and pre-NFA firearms, on the other hand, is entirely legal within the United States. Even post-NFA firearms can be sold through FFL transfers, within state and local law limitations. The remaining bans are little more complex than the bans on sex toys, which Google AdWords do allow the sale of.
Moreover, Google’s AdWords has a FamilySafe and Non-FamilySafe status; if the matter were merely that of what is “safe for the kiddies”.
As SayUncle and other gunbloggers have found out in the past, the Google AdSense ban on “sale or promotion of weapons” sites is read to quite a wide scale, while AdSense bans on “excessive profanity” and “adult content” have rather obviously not been.
I’d consider banning a lawful product, in part of content policies that overwhelmingly focus on solely unlawful products, to have a rather demonizing effect. Likewise, I’d consider removing one of the simplest and most reliable ways to pay for bandwidth from one side of a public debate to be a non-trivial aspect in the matter. The internet is the only major field in which lawful gun owners have been successful at encouraging new individuals to join their ranks; even seemingly minor stances on the matter have quite the ability to change outcomes.
That’s Google’s option, as a private company, but it certainly deserves a degree of criticism.
Ignoring for now the rather racist origins of the “Saturday Night Special” term, 25% of the cost of “a” (one) gun typically covered by laws against “cheap” firearms could come to over 100 USD (Walther P22’s ZAMAK construction would fall afoul of several “Saturday Night Special” laws). That could easily overcome the cost of a typical well-constructed .22 rifle, and even add significantly to the costs of centerfire rifles and handguns.
I’ve also seen places where arguably “shall-issue” permit systems quickly mandated such a time- and money- requirement as to become effectively impossible for all but the most devoted users. Ohio’s “shall issue” concealed carry permit law requires a full day (100+ USD) class, two hours during normal work hours dealing with police station paperwork, and ended up taking well over two months for a friend of mine to receive after that point. It also required him to surrendered a number of expectations of privacy.
I can understand your intentions, but there’s a saying somewhere about what the cobblestones on the way to hell are labeled.
Gatt,
As for the term “Saturnday night special”, I’ve always thought of it as relating to poverty, not race. It sucks mightily that those are related, but not everything that has to do with slums needs to have to do with blacks.
Likewise, what I meant by the term was an actually cheap gun, not some legal definition made up by a legislature that wants to be “tough” on gangs. There are piece-of-crap guns for $50. I meant that I’m okay with a$10-15 fee to file paperwork authenticating a gun buyer as a non-felon. That’s the same fee as for getting a driver’s licence or equivalent here in NY. That’s for the paperwork, not for the investigation (if there is one) as to previous convictions, because the latter is a cost of law enforcement and should come out of police budgets.
And again, I mean actual shall-issue rules. You pay your $15 and you get your permit. And the permit should be for owning any number of guns without registration. If I recall correctly, Vermont and New Hampshire are the only places even close to that.
Of course, I’m now solidly off-topic for the thread. With respect to Google, I just don’t see how one can think of policies about advertizing, even legal products, can be parlayed into demonizing them. Commercial speech is never free, and getting paid for commercial speech certainly isn’t.
Dan M.:
New Hampshire is pretty good about that, and at $10 has the cheapest carry license in the country.
Vermont actually doesn’t have a permit system at all. If you’re not a Prohibited Person, you may carry without a permit anywhere in the state.
What I’m actually a bigger fan of is Alaska’s CCW system. They don’t require a license to carry if you’re 21+, but they’ll give one to you for out-of-state travel. Also, holders of valid permits don’t have to get a federal background check on each purchase.
Ohio’s “shall issue” concealed carry permit law requires a full day (100+ USD) class, two hours during normal work hours dealing with police station paperwork, and ended up taking well over two months for a friend of mine to receive after that point.
In other words, claiming an absolute right to acquire a device designed explicitly for killing human beings requires far less time, training, money, and effort than acquiring a permit for the privilege of driving a car - in one of the few states that bothers to impose any requirements at all. Great. I feel safer already.
“In other words, claiming an absolute right to acquire a device designed explicitly for killing human beings requires far less time, training, money, and effort than acquiring a permit for the privilege of driving a car - in one of the few states that bothers to impose any requirements at all. Great. I feel safer already.”
I don’t know about your state, but mine has practically no restrictions on getting a driver’s license. You’re only required to take driver’s ed if you’re under 18. So a 21-year-old who wishes to get a license must go down to the DMV, pass a written test that’s nearly impossible to fail (”If you come to a flashing red light, what must you do?”), pass a driving test that’s nearly impossible to fail, and pass an eye exam that requires 20/40 or better. Pay $50, and you walk out with a license.
You can walk out with a brand new license in well under 2 hours, and a renewal in about 15 minutes.
What was that about time, money, training, and effort?
UNHchabo already broke this down, but I’d like to add some detail.
That was for a concealed carry permit. Ohio does not license gun ownership.
Massachusetts does, and the mandates are significantly worse. I’d rather not list my personal experience there, but a good overview of the matter can be found here. The matter breaks down to rough 315 USD, several person-hours, and months of time.
Coincidentally, my Massachusetts driver’s license required zero training time, 40 USD, and fifteen minutes during a lunch break. No fingerprinting, surrender of the fourth amendment, mental exams, anything like that. Oh, and I can drive in Massachusetts without a driver’s license on private property.
It’s a good thing that cars never kill people.
UNCHabo & gattsuru:
It appears you’re right about Driver’s Ed only being required for teenagers in most states (in many states, not at all). When I was a teen, everyone did it as a teen; I assumed that meant everyone had to do it.
That just means, however, that getting a driver’s license is easy only if you don’t drive at all until you’re 18. If you do it the way almost everyone does it, it still requires much more classroom and training time than a gun permit. As to the practical procedures, I guess that depends on your local DMV. In California, you could expect to spend hours on it, even with an appointment, and the driving test was far from un-failable. I was the only one of three kids in my family to pass the first time, and not without some derisive muttering from the instructor.
You’re right, too, that simply buying a gun is easier than getting a concealed carry permit, so I should have said “secretly arm yourself with”, rather than “acquire”, a gun. In most states that require instruction before issuing concealed-carry licenses, however, the “instruction” does not include ever actually firing the gun. In some states, no instruction is required.
So the general thrust of my remarks is still correct. Going through the legal steps for packing a weapon explicitly designed for killing other human beings is significantly faster and easier, and much cheaper if you have to pay for your own training class, than the normal process by which most people get drivers’ licenses, and requires no practical demonstration of safety or proficiency with the weapon. It hardly seems unreasonable to me that, at the very least, a CCW permit ought to require an equivalent amount of instruction and practice as is required in a typical high-school Driver’s Ed class, as well as a practical test covering both safety and proficiency. (And, of course, if you really believed your own argument that getting a driver’s license is easier than getting a CCW, then you’d agree with me, because adopting my plan would make getting the CCW easier, right?)
It would certainly be a good thing if cars never killed people. But they are virtually never used to do so deliberately. And do you think, if cars were acually designed as killing machines, and if the most-often-cited reason people gave for buying a small compact car was their expectation that they might someday have to jump out of bed late at night and use it, panicked and half asleep, to deliberately run over the first person they see, whom statistics show often turns out to be their spouse or child, and if car killings became the leading method of murder throughout the country every single year for generations on end, that we might then want more, not less preparation and training on the part of the people who use them?