Do you prefer the generic "people fiddling with their devices on a sunny day, female voice playing buzzword bingo in the background"? Props for Google for being ballsy.

I also love how people throw in the "multinational" qualifier as if this makes a company that much more evil.

I don't see how in any way Google is being "ballsy" here. It is a safe, soppy and relationships-oriented ad - in what world can that ever be "ballsy"?

Furthermore, I don't see the parent use the word "evil" in his comment.

That said, when a multinational that ferrets around billions of dollars in revenue around the world through obscure countries to avoid paying significant taxes in any of the countries it operates it [0], suddenly attempts to portray itself as warm, fuzzy and a big proponent of India-Pakistan friendship, forgive me for taking them at a lot less than face value.

[0] http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/to-reduce-its-tax-bu...

Yeah, except for the fact that they are dealing with relationships torn apart by partition.

They are not "dealing" with those relationships, but merely milking them.

IMHO, there is nothing ballsy about an ad; at the end of the day it is profit vs you. There are selling, you are getting emotional and consuming, exactly what they want. :) Well, some people tend to interpret in whatever way it suits them, but I don't think I meant evil when I said multi-national. If you get it, I was just referring to the scale of the company.

It would not surprise me if Google actually was taking action. They've been known to chime in on national politics here and there.

What magical action did you have in mind?

I don't, really. My point is that Google has shown that they're willing to act.

Here's the article that was submitted to HN about a recent thing:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12330&MediaType=1&Ca...

Here's the HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4213162

I understand what you mean, but these two conflicts are nowhere near the same scale. Social rights issues have a lot of work done by lots of dedicated people over decades, until they reach a tipping point. A for-profit corporation, no matter how good at marketing, will not stake their financial health by going against massive consensus, they just don't have the political/financial freedom to do that. If they had to pick between India and Pakistan in an actual war, they would take sides according to their interest or get out of both, but that's about it.

Mainly though, the scale here is way off. Apologies for the sarcastic reply before.

No, I agree. In no way did I mean to suggest that Google was going to take the role of a UN with teeth, to mediate between different countries.

It would be more accurate for me to say that Google has a demonstrated willingness to allow their employees to contribute to political activism using company resources. Absolutely, it has a selfish motive, but it's a central principle of capitalism to leverage selfish motives into public goods. (No comment on the principle itself.)