Google Translate, Maps work in China, for example. Google Maps in particular, when viewed within the country, follows ruling party line on where to draw the borders[0], though it is not a practice they apply to China exclusively.
And it brings them absolutely no good really, either in good will or cash, which is a good lesson for others not to take the same stand if the country they hail from doesn't do it as a whole.
Google used to obey China's censorship requests, and was allowed in China. Then Google decided to stop obeying the requests, and China blocked Google.
You're saying that China was happy about that because China wanted Google out anyway and needed an excuse? If China didn't need an excuse, China could have blocked Google from the start. China has blocked things it considers offensive without an explicit action from that party (such as Winnie the Pooh).
If Google was obeying China's censorship, what would China find offensive about Google?
Does China find a similar level of offensiveness in the NBA and Blizzard, such that China is disappointed that they censored themselves and thus China doesn't have an excuse to block them?
Well football player Colin Kaepernick previously faced a lot of criticism for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racism, and Donald Trump said he should be fired. Colin then accused the NFL of keeping him out of the league due to it.
Although this is a bit different, because this happens on the field, whereas Twitter is more separate.
Is this actually still true? I know initially they exited China because they wouldn't play by the rules, but they definitely re-entered China, and as far as I know, they did it by agreeing to censoring their search results in China.
My thought is that it's ok to deal with China as long as they play by our rules not their rules (such as censorship). If they see that they can still operate successfully under a system with freedom of speech, maybe they won't be so against it.
But yes, you do have to be careful not to let them become a large enough percentage of revenue that the company would be in danger if China started threatening to pull out.
I agree that if you don't want to beholden to foreign rules, then don't become dependent on foreign markets. But what is this "our rules" business? Google lobbying rules that's currently clashing with the EU. Or US foreign policy rules?
I know multiple colleagues who have 1.5 hour commutes each way. For example live in San Francisco and commute to Mountain View, or live in Oakland and commute to Mountain View.
I did the SF -> Google commute from 2011 through 2014, and it was usually 1.5 hours each way, up to 2 hours on a bad day. I assume it has only gotten worse.
My commute (Livermore to south bay) is 2+ hours each way. From the folks I know/work with, this seems like a fairly average commute, maybe a little on the high side.
>A view is a view, and an ad will pay out the same regardless of the quality of the content on the page.
That's not really true. Advertisers can bid on how much they want to pay for each individual impression. Advertisers will likely bid more for ads on high quality websites. Advertisers will also bid more for people willing to buy stuff.
Do I really need a citation to prove dumb people have money? Because that's basically what you are asking. Or perhaps you believe that when people click an ad on "low-quality" site the are less likely to buy than from the same ad on "high-quality" site?
Seriously, the "enlargement penis" spam works because the average person is not that selective on the ads they chose nor the websites they visit.
Google has only ever filed 2 patent suits. This one against Uber, and one against BT. The BT one was only after BT gave meritless patents to patent trolls under the condition that the patent trolls would immediately sue Google and Android phone manufacturers.
When your company stores very private info on billions of people, and is actively attacked (sometimes successfully) by the top intelligence agencies of the world[1][2], you have to be extremely careful, and monitor everything.
Economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in 2009 "...banks that are too big to fail are too big to exist..."
My theory is that the too big to exist theory is now true for basically all the tech giants. Generally, everyone who knows the kind of tracking these companies do (internal and external) agree this is true, except those who benefit from the companies' continued existence e.g. employees, investors, shareholders.
On the other hand, imagine if the data collection never stops and one of the big companies gets hacked, or faces a serious competitive threat making it more likely to sell its data, starts going out of business, or needs to cooperate by sharing its data in return for government favors, or needs to share data to get access to foreign markets etc. I have a feeling this venerable "consumer" is going to learn a painful lesson one of these days.
At least some contractors get some of the perks. I've seen kitchen workers, security, maintenance workers eating in the cafes. This article says bus drivers have access to the cafes and gym:
Google was at the career fair at my university. I went and talked to them. They said apply online. I did that, did phone interviews and got an internship.
So at least for Google, they don't need to come to your college.
