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."
You'd figure they could put some specific charges with dates and the precise content that wasn't available. I love the way the Slashdot summary says "read on to make your own decision" but the linked article doesn't actually contain any more detail than the summary.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But certainly the news portal itself seems either biased, or US news really is that bad.
I have noticed if I search for a story I will find it, but the google portal does give a good indication of what the US is seeing.
For example Bushes war records. You check the news/search engine all you find is about the CBS documents.
However if you were to dig more you would find that a judge has ordered the release of the originals (ref: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6022115/).
I've wondered if this is a new system of polluting the news on the net. As it is harder to control stories but easy to bury them.
Note that I don't think this is right, and the current internet censorship really sucks, neither does it work --- new sites containing western political views spring up every day and they can't censor them one by one. The recent efforts against porn sites are even more laughable, considering that it is still hard to find a news site in China that does not contain sexual content deemed inappropriate for children by most parents. Hopefully some time in the future they will admit that such efforts are useless and use the money on places that really need them (such as some poor rural areas).
Many of us on Slashdot use Google very frequently (almighty god, give us this day our daily byte...) to find all kinds of information including stuff that we need and use to make our livelihood. We also use google to keep up with the news. Mostly, we find what we need if it is out there on the net.
This easy access to information on the net seems to have distorted our expectations somewhat. We expect, nay demand, that Google find everything there is to find, always, correctly, without fear or favour, without regard to consequences that might affect Google itself, without consideration for the laws of the many lands that Google serves - in short we want Google to be a completely good and benevolevent omniscient oracle. Googles 'do ot be evil" motto is partly to blame for this - especially to people unfamiliar with the context of the phrase. I don't think the motto calls on Google to commit hara-kiri to assert its fealty to freedom and the protection of all good in the universe. I do not expect Google to take on the Death Star in a battered Millenium Falcon. I do expect, and rightfully, that google will not screw me over by selling my personal information, by setting terms and conditions that take away my ability to use it in conjunction with any other service or sofware I want, by taking away my right to choose, by deliberately and maliciously determining what I see in order to increase their profit.
Unfortunately, the same omniscient hold that Google has on the information on the net makes it easier for oppressive governments to control information. Previously, where such regimes had to track and control a million individual sources of information, they can now achieve that control by influencing Google. Since Google is subject to the laws of the countries where it operates (GASP!), it has no choice but to comply when threatened with complete blocking of its services in e.g. China or France. Remember the case of Yahoo! and neo-Nazi material? You can bet that Yahoo! will pull that information now that it is clear the first amendment will not protect them from legal process in France or Germany in respect of that material.
So, the question is, do we give up on google altogether? Of course not - it has for better or worse, grown into an extension of our memory, we google as easily as we breathe - my three year old daughter knows that google will help her find her favorite cartoon sites! What we need is a tempering of the expectation that we have of Google. Get used to the idea - you will need it more in the days to come, Google is merely another tool you have at your disposal. It is NOT the be all and end all of all known human wisdom.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
(Do google even claim not to be evil?)
Uh, yes. That's what everyone is talking about.
Well, the obvious solution is that they should be MARKING what they're censoring so people know that "something" was censored, even if they can't see it. When they return results for searches, or display news stories, they should just be returning a "censored" link that goes to a page explaining why they are unable to provide the content.
Kind of like their old policy on takedown notices.
Journalists used to do the same thing before they sold-out to the government. For eaxmple, if they were in a war situation and the government censored pieces of their footage, they'd just broadcast black on-air so that viewers knew SOMETHING was being withheld from them by the government and they could start asking questions.
But journalists have become the pawns and puppets of government now, and rather than holding them accountable, they're just climbing into bed with them. Makes me sick.
N.
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Here is one place
on the left column: " 6) You can make money without doing evil."
In fact the following google search returns a hell of a lot of results. Though on closer inspection it seems that pop up ads = evil, whilst censoring results on behalf of the chinese goverment = profit.
East Coast Brewers
Its really a business decision - if the government of a country whos internet population is over 60 million demands that you stick a few lines of code in your software or they will block you totally, what are you gonna do? sure you're aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, but business is business and 60 million people is allot of business, its not like other companies don't do it - IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis, Cisco supplies network equipment to the Great Firewall of China.
Also what exactly did they proove here? it seems a bit of a bad explination, if google was providing different chinese content based on your position relative to the firewall then that would mean the firewall was doing the censoring right? "Google China" means that google has determined you are in China from your IP or the address you typed - if the news was the same on both sides then that would be dodgy because it would mean the firewall wasnt changing anything so google must be?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Intrestingly enough; Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. (the parent company of all US Fox holdings), also owns several Asian media companies. Murdoch is directly responsible, among other things, for buying up the South China Morning Post and firing those journalists who dared to criticize the Chinese government. Funny that Bill O'Reilly's boss is also one of the biggest supporters of the repressive government in Beijing.
"After war, money is the most effective way to change another country's behaviour."
Very good. That's exactly what Google is doing, providing a venue for the insertion of capitalism (money) and information (partial search).
"If we say 'that's just business' we are putting a rubber stamp on China's current activities."
Please give an alternative which would allow democratic countries to have a foot in the door if you would deny those companies who would abide by their rules (that is, be allowed in in the first place)? Assuming you preclude war, that is.