Slashdot Mirror
Google Agrees to Censor Results in China
neutralino writes "The Associated Press is reporting that Google has agreed to censor results in China. According to the article, 'Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.'"
be evil.
sulli
RTFJ.
What people need to realize is that Google doesn't really have a choice in the matter. I don't believe this violates the "Don't be evil" motto, as Google is simply trying to follow Chinese law. I don't think Google should be scrutinized for this, considering every other company (Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) has been forced to do the same thing. What people should be scrutinizing is Chinese law, not companies that follow said laws. Of course, the entire political situation in China is horrible and always has been.
google.slashdot
I clicked on "Read More" as soon as the article came up and I got the message
"Nothing for you to see here, please move along"
Chinese censorship on slashdot too? 8@
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
. . . unless it makes money.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.
That statement is bullshit. The 'worthwhile sacrifice' mentioned is clearly meant to work against the clear contravention of the 'do no evil' motto. However what is being sacrificed? The ethics of Google. What is being gained by the sacrifice? Access to China == profit. So they're sacrificing ethics for profit - that isn't exactly original for a corporation.
More from the article: "We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.
Again, bullshit. Google is an informaiton company. Their entire existence is justified by making access to and use of information easier. If they censor that information based on the petty politics of nationalists (or any other political concern) then they are not serving their purpose. They are in fact reinforcing the policies of censorship and repression in China. If everyone, every company goes along with these policies then what motivation is there to change them?
Here's a real sacrifice: lose profits from lack of presence in China and be ethical and further the cause of free speech. That's a sacrifice, something you'd like, for something better. Not the other way around. Really the way these PR droids use language makes me want to have them lobotomised... and PR school doesn't count.
// It had been Fat's delusion for years that he could help people. --Philip K. Dick, Valis
Didn't google used to stand for free information for all? Now its, free information for all, but if someone asks, we change the information. If I ask google about 'revolutions in China' I bet I get some answers that would be filtered in China. What ever happened to the 'WHOLE' Truth? I understand this company must abide by local laws, but why not just disable service to someone who does not wish to follow YOUR "don't be evil" strategy? How much money does Google really make in China? Is it worth selling out?
--sig fault--
I have no problem with selling China cars or airplanes or other stuff like that. But to actively collaborate with the regime in stifling dissent is just too much. After this, I don't think anyone should have any faith at all in their claim that they will stick up to the US Government's fishing expedition.
Google is dead. Someone new will take their place. Someone who doesn't kowtow to dictators.
sulli
RTFJ.
At least Google's management are in touch with the Chinese people, the make the same wage: $1. That's really taking into account the culture of the country!
please excuse my apathy
I am sick and tired of the West sucking up to China. It seems China gets the best end of the bargain - they get the benefits of capitalism and trade with the west - but they get a free pass on democracy, and the West even helps them with their dictatorship and censorship needs.
So, I guess totalitarianism is bad, as long as a small, weak country is doing it. But "China very big" so, we have to do what China says.
Motherfuckers. Screw Google and all the other apologists.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Same _exact_ reasoning will apply to handing over search queries and associated user data to the US government.
New motto:
Do no evil unless governments compel you to if you want to stay in the market.
As the article goes on to state, when an item is censored Google will tell you it has censored the searched item to comply with local laws. This sort of censorship where you know something is being kept from you is much less scary than the type where you simply don't know what is being kept from you. Simply providing their search engine to China in censored form, and admitting to users they are being censored isn't evil. What is evil is the Chinese governments restrictions on free speech, but Google can only choose to provide a censored search engine or not provide one at all.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
If you want to spread democracy, is it better to simply not to business in anti-democratic countries or to do business on their terms?
That is a question that every pro-democracy person, company, and government has to make when it comes to anti-democratic countries like China.
The answer, as with much of life, varies with the individual circumstances.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
As the article goes on to state, when an item is censored Google will tell you it has censored the searched item to comply with local laws. This sort of censorship where you know something is being kept from you is much less scary than the type where you simply don't know what is being kept from you.
To use your own analogy this would be like Poland Spring putting lead in their water, and then putting a bit notice on every bottle that said "To comply with Chinese law we have put lead in this water."
If you know the water is posion you can choose to drink elsewhere if you wish.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Google now censors it's search results for things that the Chinese government doesn't want it's people to read, just as it has been doing the same thing to comply with laws in France and Germany.
0 .html6 38n sorship.php
Here is some more information:
http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2005-01-15-n5
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050117-090
http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-ce
So the question is, why are people so offended when Google censors for China, but think the same behavior is fine for Europe?
Consumer goods have gotten cheap because they are being "engineered" for cheap production.
Compare today's $7 widget to the $10 widget you bought in 1996. The newer widget weighs half as much, is made from inferior materials, and won't last nearly as long. You're not saving $3, you're being ripped off.
With the exception of consumer electonics, most of the retail goods have gotten significantly more expensive in the past 10 - 20 years... when you hold quality constant.
I think the moral high ground isn't to get into bed with a facist country for the sake of money. But I can see why Google fans would want to spin that in a positive way. Yes, Google could have done worse. But they're still aiding and abetting the Chinese government.
I think you have to look at it pragmatically. If Google don't do what the Chinese Government asks then the whole of Google will be blocked/filtered so what Google is doing doesn't have an "evil" effect that wouldn't be happening anyway.
Liberalisation of China is probably going to be something that happens in a creeping fashion. A position based entirely on principal (ie Google refusing outright) might actually be worse in practice because it would actually mean more isolation for the Chinese people, not less. Whatever blocks are placed it isn't going to be 100% effective.
If Google put's up a "Some results have been omited due to local legal requirements" message like they do with some other blocks all the better, at least the people will know they are being filtered and why.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
What if this were Microsoft?
Would you be so willing to understand?
I fail to see how this is evil. Google had two options. They could either censor some of their results, or China would censor all of their results. If censoring is bad, logically more censoring is worse than less censoring. Google thus is not doing evil, they are making the best of an inherently evil situation. If this is evil, then "doing no evil" is impossible, because no matter what they did, evil would have been done.
Some might argue that Google could have simply held their ground and China would have eventually caved. I doubt this. There are plenty of search engines out there, and although they might not be quite as good as Google, they're not bad or anything. If popular demand for Google is big enough to make China give up their censoring, then China's censorship laws can't be that strict if something as trivial as Google versus Yahoo is willing to make them cave.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Totalitarianism is ok in:
a) any country with a useful resource and a friendly-to-us government (see: Saudi Arabia)
b) any country that would be kind of a pain to invade with no clear benefit (see: most totalitarian countries)
c) any country that would be a total bitch to invade (see: N. Korea) despite possible security benefits for us and our allies/helpers.
I am speaking of US policy hear, but generally, governments in the west follow these policies. I hate that people think that China gets a blind eye. The human rights and legal situations in China are probably the most talked about and scrutinized in the west of any non-democratic country (besides Iraq). But what the hell do you expect countries to do?
There's a goodly amount of international pressure on China as-is, and while I wouldn't be against ramping that up, I think an invasion there would be pretty much 130% Grade-A insane.
While this has been a bit off-topic, it does apply. Google has to deal with the country the way it is (as our national governments do), and the other choice is to let some other non-blocked IP become China's Google. The real test of their principles will be whether they use their market share there, once gained, to try to stand up for greater freedom of information. 'Standing up' to the government on this issue now would provide nothing besides a little bit of good PR here in the west, no substantive gain for the Chinese people.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
Google is aiding everyone by trying to provide the information.. the problem is Google doesn't have guns.. The Government does.
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+S quare++&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The alternative is to be shut out of China entirely. This would be WORSE for the Chinese citizens trying to break though their government's tyranny. Google isn't sacrificing anything at all. It is giving its Chinese consumers the best product that the government will allow them.
If you disagree, please explain how Google refusing to participate with China would help a Chinese dissadent. Remember, China's filters have holes, and there will be even more of them if they have to watch every darned google search.
Google has financial guns, which in many ways can be far more powerful than physical ones.
That said, I don't blame them for doing it. They would be missing out on one of the biggest potential markets in existence, and who knows - maybe the "your results are being censored" text will wake some people up to the truth when they would have just remained clueless using another search engine.
For someone who is currently living in China and using it daily, I am very glad they made this particular decision. For those condemning Google for not sticking to "Don't Be Evil" or for selling out, consider this - which is the greater evil, to filter out some information (and let people know it _is_ being filtered), or to deny them access to information altogether?
It is easy to talk about sticking to principles and refusing censorship from the comfort of a (relatively) uncensored computer. But have you ever considered what life would be like for those without Google? When _every_ single search engine out there, including Yahoo, MSN or others, are all filtered? All this means is that the most effective information resource out there is gone and we have to rely on substandard competitors that cave in far more easily to any pressure (e.g. DOJ request for info). Finding _any_ information becomes harder. What good has it done anyone?
It is easy to paint every decision as black and white, good or evil. But life really isn't that simple. Google had to choose between bad and evil and they came up with a solution that was better than any of their competitors. At least they tell you that something is filtered out. At least a smart and curious person still can go out and find out what it was that was filtered. The alternatives (international or chinese) do not even do that.
Among my workmates, information is well shared. Everyone knows what happened in the square. Heck, a couple of them were there. They knew about the benzene spill in Harbin long before it came out in news. Don't worry. Information of this sort gets around fairly well through various means. Censoring it from Google really won't hide anything. All blocking Google means is that when we hit obscure technical problems, we can no longer find solutions quickly. When we want to learn about the latest technology, we must scan through pages and pages of listings to find a decent resource. Oh yes, we'll also make Overture rich cause sooner or later, we will click through one of their sponsored links.
Google doesn't have guns.. The Government does.
Google has a far stronger weapon than any gun... the ability to make easy the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.
This is the same shit that allowed Switzerland to remain "neutral" during WW2 yet help the Nazis and kill jews...
"can only choose to provide a censored search engine or not provide one at all"
The moral would walk away, especially if your moto is do no evil. If evil is the only option, do you do it?
Tienanmen square is the tip of the iceberg. I have conversations with people in China all the time via Skype, and they don't even know that Mao killed more Chinese than Tojo! They know that their parents lost a sibling during the cultural revolution, but they have no idea that Mao's body count is well into the tens of millions. A few of them have been stunned when I sent them the wikipedia pages on the Cutural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward.
Communism is on the way to the ash heap of history, and when companies like Google, Microsoft, and Cisco help the thugs, they're just helping in delaying the liberation of China. I hope that the Chinese people make their displeasure known when they become a free country.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And that makes it okay? "Shareholders" and society in general need to grow a conscience and learn there is more to success than money. That there's more to LIFE than money.
Random and weird software I've written.
Personally, I think the Chinese have this search engine censorship backwards. If I were in charge of the country, I think I'd WANT a massive easy to use search engine that spends its days and nights toiling away finding links to dissident web sites. After all, it would make my job of finding and... uh... reeducating those unhappy people MUCH easier.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Perhaps you can't read the notice, but is there, in Chinese, at the bottom of the search results on Google.com.cn:
"Ju dangdi falü fagui he zhengce, bufen sousuo jieguo weiyu xianshi."
"According to local laws, regulations and policies, part of the search results is not being shown."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tiananmen+Squ are+&btnG=Google+Search
S quare++&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+
The bulk of the English results refer to the massacre. Not oe of google.cn's hits refers to this. Nor is there a reference to the vast omission.
And they say this is not censorship.
"Don't be evil" -- Google
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke, English statesman and political philosopher (1729-1797
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
That there's more to LIFE than money.
There's also the award-winning photography.
Yes, but there is a cutoff. $2 billion dollars doesn't buy you any more time than $200k, it just buys you a lot more caviar.
Does a publicly traded company only have financial duties to shareholders, or should it be trying to help those shareholders in other ways? For example, would a shareholder rather live in a world where he has an extra $500, or a world where his kids won't have to fight a war with a brainwashed Chinese population? As a shareholder, I expect my companies to behave in a manner that will make my life better in more than just financial ways.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.