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 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
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