*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 30th, 2012 12:48pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter gwiz665.

Right On, Woz!!!

I don't know, his first comment just rubs me the wrong way. Not sure if I agree with what he says about people shouldn't be responsible when they're running a big company.

He feels he shouldn't be responsible for a company when he doesn't want to be an executive. I agree in the sense that we should not depend on company owner's judgement and morale to be responsible for their actions. That would be a very naive thing to do, and it has always failed us in the end.

The part I'm concerned about is that once you're the owner of a big company, the power is already given to you whether you like it or not, and someone needs to control that power. If you say you don't want that power and hand it to someone else and wipe your mouth, then who else is responsible for the power you've just given away? You're letting someone else do the dirty job for you, and act like a saint saying you have no blood on your hands.

And when someone approaches you saying: "your company is doing such and such evil things!" you say, 'oh, I'm not responsible for those decisions. Ask the other person. I'm clean'. That's bullshit. You are still liable responsible for allowing such powers to goto someone who didn't wield it well.

By the way, that reporter has a nose ring. NICE.

>> ^legacy0100:

I don't know, his first comment just rubs me the wrong way. Not sure if I agree with what he says about people shouldn't be responsible when they're running a big company.
He feels he shouldn't be responsible for a company when he doesn't want to be an executive. I agree in the sense that we should not depend on company owner's judgement and morale to be responsible for their actions. That would be a very naive thing to do, and it has always failed us in the end.
The part I'm concerned about is that once you're the owner of a big company, the power is already given to you whether you like it or not, and someone needs to control that power. If you say you don't want that power and hand it to someone else and wipe your mouth, then who else is responsible for the power you've just given away? You're letting someone else do the dirty job for you, and act like a saint saying you have no blood on your hands.
And when someone approaches you saying: "your company is doing such and such evil things!" you say, 'oh, I'm not responsible for those decisions. Ask the other person. I'm clean'. That's bullshit. You are still liable responsible for allowing such powers to goto someone who didn't wield it well.
By the way, that reporter has a nose ring. NICE.


He isn't running any big company. He never was. He rightly pointed out that he was just an engineer who had no interest in creating a big company. He didn't say any of the stuff you wrote. He never claimed an executive should not have any responsibility. None of what you wrote has any connection to this video or Woz.

first sentence into the interview and yeah, I have to agree, he sounds like he's trying to wash his hands of any responsibility. If he wanted to just be a good engineer, he didn't have to become a co-founder. He could have said "thanks steve, but no thanks, I like working in my garage"

as corporations get more and more powerful, the issues of their responsibility are going to be bigger and bigger.

I dunno, the way I see it, the internet is too big to be cracked down on and locked down. Of course there are always going to be people who try to lock it down but it will be temporary at best. sure there are always going to be your walled gardens and areas where things are locked down, but the internet at large will probably always be free.

There would be too much outrage if they were actually successful in locking people out.

but like anything, you can't just rest on your laurels and do nothing and assume it will be free without doing anything. freedom has to be fought for. There has to be pushback. The protests of PIPA/SOPA did have an effect and if someone tries to take something away from you, you fight to keep it.

@swedishfriend He's super-defensive of how Apple has acted whenever he's asked about it.

>> ^VoodooV:

first sentence into the interview and yeah, I have to agree, he sounds like he's trying to wash his hands of any responsibility. If he wanted to just be a good engineer, he didn't have to become a co-founder. He could have said "thanks steve, but no thanks, I like working in my garage"
as corporations get more and more powerful, the issues of their responsibility are going to be bigger and bigger.
I dunno, the way I see it, the internet is too big to be cracked down on and locked down. Of course there are always going to be people who try to lock it down but it will be temporary at best. sure there are always going to be your walled gardens and areas where things are locked down, but the internet at large will probably always be free.
There would be too much outrage if they were actually successful in locking people out.
but like anything, you can't just rest on your laurels and do nothing and assume it will be free without doing anything. freedom has to be fought for. There has to be pushback. The protests of PIPA/SOPA did have an effect and if someone tries to take something away from you, you fight to keep it.


Yeah the first sentence is do important people have a responsibility to speak out about regulation of the internet! No questions about taking responsibility for the actions of ones company. Of course the people running a company are responsible for the actions of the company. This was never talked about in this video. Woz states he likes it when anyone in the public eye speaks out for what they think is right. I cannot believe people are trying to correct me and still completely fail to understand basic English. Whether or not Woz is defensive about Apple in other situations I don't know anything about and is also irrelevant since he hasn't had any influence there for decades.

"Murdering an abortion doctor isnt free speech"

I know he was making a point, but thats a horrible example right there. Had he said "making deathtreats isnt free speech" or "revealing the identity of someone who is on a witness protection program" he might be onto something. Free speech comes with some responsibility, sure. But murder isnt really even a candidate in the first place, is it?

He says nobody has a responsibility to speak out just because his company is really big.

Then he goes and finances the EFF. I'd say that's speaking out, though he believes he doesn't have to.

>> ^legacy0100:

I don't know, his first comment just rubs me the wrong way.


The responsibility of rich computer company owners he is talking about is "the responsibility" the reporter said "to speak out against" the Internet being over-regulated.

You TOTALLY heard that wrong.