Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo, Google 'Irresponsible' In China
sava writes "Reporters Without Borders is reporting of 'irresponsibility' of major U.S. located Internet search engine firms Yahoo! and Google 'in bowing directly and indirectly to Chinese government demands for censorship and called for a code of conduct to be imposed.' Maybe there should be a free alternative to these search engines? Or would China ban access to it also?"
that's the whole point isn't it?
why would they decide if it needs to be censored based on it being free or not?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Google's business is selling advertisements. We get the fringe benefit of having the search engine, but their perfectly transparent business model is selling those advertisements.
With that in our mind, it's easy to see why Google would do anything asked of it and co-operate with chinese government demands to filter content. They offer their services to users, they collect their revenue from Advertisers.
Presumably even limited as it is, Google is still the best in China.
What I'd like to know is can I also access that filtered content?
I bet it's a lot better for kids than normal google is...
This is a ridiculous article. At the very least, it's a poor headline.
So, after reading the article (!), I have concluded:
- RSF says Yahoo is bad because they filter search results - in order to get their foot in the door of a 1 billion-person country.
- RSF says Google COULD go bad because they just recently partnered with a company that does currently filter results.
- RSF says, IMO grudgingly, Google is NOT CURRENTLY being bad - they display all results and do not filter.
- RSF notes Google has been banned in the past (for a week) for not filtering results.
RSF, heed this wake-up call: first of all, one billion people represent a shitload of money. Companies exist to make money. Google has, LUCKY FOR YOU, made money and NOT been Evil China's Favorite Search Engine.
Second of all, Google's past actions mean nothing? Perhaps they'll use their stake in Baidu to force them to not filter? That seems just as likely a conclusion, based on the past, as assuming that by acquiring a stake in another company means that they themselves will suddenly change tack and start filtering their results. Which you admit they haven't done.
I normally respect organisations like RSF but jesus harold christ they're really grasping at straws here. I wish all companies operated as ethically as Google does. Which is not to say Google is perfect or a paragon of virtue - merely that they appear to be better than their competitors.
Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
Perhaps refuse to put profit over human rights? We silly Slashdotters. If there were any justice in the world, it would be illegal for U.S.-owned companies to work with these regimes. Perhaps someday, the executives of Cisco, Yahoo, and the like will be brought to justice at The Hague for their role in repressing human rights.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
There are already multiple Chinese search engines. However, localization will neither solve the problem of Chinese governmental censorship nor of American search engines' complicity in this totalitarian behavior.