Slashdot Mirror
Does Google Censor Chinese News?
mOoZik writes "A story carried by New Scientist suggests that Google might be playing into the hands of the Chinese government by blocking certain news stories which may be deeded inappropriate. Some users recently reported that Google's Chinese news search returned different results depending when they searched using a computer based outside of China. The claims were substantiated by researchers who connected to computers inside the country. Read on and decide for yourself."
From what I understand, Google already censors their content in other countries like France and Germany. This is only making the news because it's big bad China. Although it kind of does blow apart this image that they like to present as being crusaders of free speech.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Google already censors search results for e.g. Germany, due to sentences spoken out by some German court.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
here it is
fifteen jugglers, five believers
In the tradition of misleading Slashdot summaries, this one contains only the accusation, not the defence. Here's Google's reply from the article:
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Google removed from sites from its' index some time ago due to legal pressure from the Scientology movement using the legal system of the United States of America.
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
This is a very insightful point that you make, and I certainly agree with you.
..." I believe that an underlying concern among many people (although not specifically mentioned) is that Google may become powerful enough through its tremendous influence among its Internet users that it could easily become subject to corporate influences which come more to benefiting the investors than the users.
It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.
Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe
On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.
Get some.
Yes, because they were already doing so in 2002.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.
To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).
I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.
It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.
Buckle up and get ready for what happens to Great Powers that become former Great Powers. Empire deconstruction isn't pretty. It is a lesson taught by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one the US will learn well.
Speak truth to power.
I keep seeing this "they can be sued" phrase pop up, and it's time to put a stake through its heart.
a tions/articles/tatelbaum_sarbanes.asp/
1. A company can be sued by a shareholder for just about anything they do. All it takes is profits being below a prediction (or some half-assed guesstimate), and someone will point to a particular corporate action as being the alledged cause. Most (90% or so in an average year) such suits are unsuccessful. Google can still be sued for working with the PRC's laws, if profits fall (even in some other division, as that could be called a PR backlash!), or for not investing agressively enough in China, if profits fall, or for not dropping this silly internet stuff and becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer, if profits fall.
2. Google is not a majority held public company. Lawsuits would be coming from minority stock holders. Minority stock holders have a steep hurdle to prove in any suit - that is they have to prove that they don't have the ulterior motive of trying to make their minority of votes (or their non-voting influence) steer the board of directors on an extra-legal issue.
3. US law simply doesn't say what you are misquoting it as saying. The law actually requires any corporation to abide by some pretty strict standards of ethics that often go against maximizing shareholder value, as in these examples:
First,
http://www.business-ethics.com/current.htm/
alwys has some examples of companies that have done the right thing, (in the opinion of the editors). You can look at what they did, and decide for yourself if they were under pressure of lawsuits or not.
Then there's the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is intended to have a positive impact on accountability, and is sometimes misconstrued to support your position. Most significantly (for this discussion), the Act imposes new responsibilities on CEOs and CFOs who could face criminal sanctions for false certification of financial reports. This was done by congress, because so FEW shareholder lawsuits against corporations were successful, and it was deemed necessary to give suing stockholders some "teeth" in a few cases of outright fraud, sufficient in itself to lead to criminal charges.
http://www.genusresources.com/site/content/public
Will go to a prety good overview of Sarbanes-Oxley, and why it DOESNT leave companies wide open to any lawsuit some shareholder attempts.
You could also read up on The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It prohibits giving anything of value, directly or indirectly, to foreign government officials or foreign political candidates in order to obtain or retain business. It is strictly prohibited to make illegal payments to government officials of any country. Given the PRCs poor worldwide reputation on this, Google management could easily win just about any shareholder lawsuit, simply by saying bribery became a major issue.
(I give up. If I'm gonna keep biting on these legal related posts, I might as well change my sig to IANAL).
Who is John Cabal?