Sunday, January 29, 2006

Tinfinger weighs up compromising morals to enter lucrative U.S. market

GEELONG, AUSTRALIA - January 29, 2005 - Australian human search engine startup Tinfinger has announced that it is considering entering the highly lucrative market in the United States of America with its innovative technology, but has expressed concerns about that country's legal environment and how it could lead to compromising the company's strong moral stance.

Paul Montgomery, Chief Executive Officer of Tinfinger, said he doubted whether so-called "engagement" with the U.S.A. to bring his company's human-centric, grass-roots approach to U.S. citizens would be tolerated by the federal government of that country.

"We're talking about an administration that clearly shows no respect for democracy, as their ascension to power came against the will of the majority of the people, and was cemented by a clearly stacked Supreme Court. I'm just not confident that the U.S. government is committed to allowing its people to govern their own affairs," Mr Montgomery said.

Mr Montgomery pointed out the continued human rights abuses by U.S. government employees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay being conducted despite United Nations criticism and in flagrant contravention of the Geneva Convention, as well as continued use of the death penalty and many new anti-terrorism laws which curtail basic human rights.

"Tinfinger is all about people, but I fear that the U.S. government is not interested in individual people or their rights, especially if those people are in marginal socio-economic groups or resemble particular racial stereotypes," he said. "I have a decision to make: should I refute all of this horrific anti-human history of the American government, or should I engage with its people in the hope that by evangelising a more inclusive approach to humanity, its citizens might learn that there is a different way?"

Internet commentators seem divided on the issue, one that has been in the news lately in reference to Google's entry into China. Here are some of the comments we received from various notables in the "blogosphere":

Steve Rubel, Micropersuasion: "I'm dropping Google AND Tinfinger. I didn't even use Tinfinger, but I'm dropping it anyway. How can I support a Web site which doesn't want to be the #1 in its field, even if you have to compromise to get there?"

John Battelle, John Battelle's Searchblog: "Where did you say you were from? Not Google? I don't want to talk to you then, goodbye. CLICK"

ben barren, rss'ing down under: "Jessica Alba thinks it's okay to engage with anybody, but I hope she gets engaged to me."

Dave Winer, Scripting News: "I told you Google was implacably evil, and I've been telling you ever since Google introduced a competitor to my main product."

Ryan King, "This is another one of those Web 2.0 things we've all heard before. Remember when Commodore started selling C64s to Cuba?"

Keith Malley, Keith & The Girl: "Those motherfuckers. Those goddamn motherfuckers. Fuck you! Fuck you all! Wait, who are we talking about?"

Other, less well-known commentators have had this to say on the Google issue:

"Hey, Google said it would DO NO EVIL? What about that?"
"How about that DO NO EVIL thing, huh?"
"DO NO EVIL? Eh? Eh?"
"lolz roofles, do no evil, kekeke la =^+^="
"I'm boycotting Google's ads but continuing to use all of their other services. Do no evil? That'll learn 'em!"


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you interview yourself Paul?

5:40 pm, January 29, 2006  
Blogger Paul Montgomery said...

No, I was interviewed by our PR company, Convex Public Relations. You'll hear more about them.

12:15 pm, January 30, 2006  
Anonymous Rob Irwin said...

Christ M0nty, some punctuation in the opening par would be a godsend ;)

3:19 pm, February 04, 2006  
Blogger Paul Montgomery said...

Again, I blame my PR people.

5:09 pm, February 04, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home