Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Confirms Chinese Censorship Claims

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the great-wall dept.

UnanimousCoward writes "A spokesperson has responded to the 'censorship' questions in this article: '"Google has decided that in order to create the best possible search experience for our mainland China users we will not include sites whose content is not accessible," company spokeswoman Debbie Frost said Friday.'" Our original article ran on Wednesday.

10 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. That's fair enough by jbartone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No use listing them if the users can't get there (that's if they're not using one of the proxy's)

    1. Re:That's fair enough by wertarbyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They could get there. Google cache. But I guess Google will be on the Verboten!-list then.

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    2. Re:That's fair enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup only terrorists would want to know what the government is hiding from them.

      Have a nice day-cycle, citizen.

  2. Just remember that by Lifix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google, as much as we love it, is a priviate company, and they have to abide by the laws, regulations and codes of conduct in forign countries, whose markets they wish to enter.

    Don't get upset with goodle over cencorship, get upset with the government who's laws they must abide.

    --
    In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
  3. What is worse than censorship... by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is silent censorship. And that is the kind of censorship that I find the most frightening about the digital age.

    When you censor a physical document, it has to go somewhere. You have to take it, you have to steal it, you have to burn it, etc. On the web, a page that is gone is just gone, quietly and painlessly, with only perhaps a few broken links to show that it was ever there. Google may think those broken links are just an annoyance, but in truth they are all that seperates the futile censorship that regimes have practiced since civilization began from 1984.

    If the Chinese government wants to censor sites, then we cannot stop them. Since they claim that they are doing it for the good of their own people, then they can have that discussion with those people, and we should not be accomplices to sweeping it under the rug.

    The sad thing is that Google already have a precedent here: the way they mark search results that have been censored due to the DMCA (cf this). If they truly believed in "not being evil" they would do the same thing with Chinese news: place a disclaimer that some results have been removed because the news sources are available in China. Leave it to CG to explain why.

  4. It makes a kind of sense by Morosoph · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the user can find a proxy, they'll be getting the full Google from there. If they can't access a site anyway, it's not a valid search result.

    I know that there's more to this issue than algorithmic accuracy, and it's easy to say that Google shouldn't be doing China's work for them, but given that Google's a good search engine, and its availabilty is accordingly boon to free speech, even if its coverage isn't comprehensive, it's better than it not being available at all. It's notable that they've not promised to create any new censorship, only to "respect" existing censorship.

    --
    Wikileaks, no DNS
  5. Re:Not necessarily by Beautyon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you think that the Chinese are so stupid that they need Google (or you for that matter) to tell them that they are not "free"?

    And as for this "false picture" being presented to the Chiese by their government, your time would be much better spent correcting those people that think, for example, that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 911.

    I'll leave it to you to compare who is free and who is not, who is getting uncensored news and who is not.

    Or is that a bad idea?!

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
  6. cowardice by photomic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I bet Google did this to avoid being blocked themselves. The obvious, non-cowardly solution, would be to present the "blocked" links in a way that identifies them as blocked. This would be doubly informative, for it would show the Chinese user what he or she could access once their oppressive, human-rights violating government is replaced (or, once they are able to emigrate); and, it would quantify the results more appropriately. How long before Google filters U.S. results for politically-appropriate content?

  7. Re:Not necessarily by wheelbarrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, Beautyon, let's compare. I'll make a statement that I think is true about the Communist Chinese government.

    The Communist Chinese government's rein of power is illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it's power is not derived from free and democratic elections conducted in an uncensored arena of freedom of expression.

    That statement alone, made on a website like Slashdot in China, could land me in jail. Perhaps, I would even just disappear and be executed without due process.

    Now, I could make the same statement about the presidency of George W Bush. I could say that his rein is illegitimate because the electoral college is a sham and Al Gore won the absolute majority of the votes. I can say that now, on Slashdot, whilst I casually sip my Sunday morning coffee and nothing will happen to me.

    Comparing the USA vs. China in this arena of the freedom of expression is ridiculous.

  8. Re:Would it be better if China took Google offline by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do you know how many people in the world think George Bush is a criminal thug and should be overthrown?

    Something like 65%? Oh, you mean outside the U.S.? I have no idea....

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/