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.
That's the whole point my friend, if you want your search engine to be available to the couple billion ppl in china then you are going to have to censor it. You can take the high road if you want, but china will just block your site. I doubt google liked the idea....
Remember Accounting has the final say...
http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
Capitalist companies behave as they do because their primary motivation is not ethics, but money. What is the huge surprise here? It is obvious to anyone who has given the matter any thought that search engines and their organisation and display of content are a potent tool of control. Google, despite being a notoriously private company, seems to be laisse faire about other peoples privacy, where it relates to commercial opportunity. I've never seen them as the "white knight" others have, but I use their service because it is currently the best. The interesting question is not, should they accede to censorship demands, but how would we know if they did?
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Maybe there should be a free alternative to these search engines?
Okay, Brainiac. Now, all you have to do is figure out 1) what difference it would make since yes, if the Chinese government doesn't like it and can't control it, they'll ban it and 2) the logistics of creating a free search engine to compete with Google which is dedicated specifically to search.
Here's a thought: maybe the answer to every problem isn't "oo! oo! Make a "free" version of it! Oo! oo!
If you could install a "free" version of the Chinese government, that would be great. But, until then, I don't see, exactly, what good creating another "subversive" site for them to block would do. If Google didn't bow, it would be blocked. They're not in the search engine business for idyllic world views, they're in it to make money. If you don't like that, don't use them. THEN you can go create your little "free" engine to pit idealism against capitalism.
Crikey... I like idealistic dreams as much as the next guy, but get real. Google wants to make money, not conform to your bizarre ideas of a perfect world.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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...
Hell what about Cisco? A few years back, didn't they take a large chunk of money from the Chinese to create the system by which China censors a large part of the internet from the Chinese People?
If you want to call someone "irresponsible," start there.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
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
I'm shocked! You mean that all business decisions aren't driven by democratic ideals, and might actually have something to do with opening new markets to make money? How can we let this happen?
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.