Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Defends Google's Censorship In China
worb writes "At the World Economic Forum today, Bill Gates defended Google's actions in China and told delegates that the internet 'is contributing to Chinese political engagement' as 'access to the outside world is preventing more censorship'. There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China, he argued."
Bill Gates wouldn't deny software licenses to The Mob, for example. Commerce should be free and open.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
n/t
Googles actions were the same as his own, weren't they? So he defended himself aswell.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
...then Ballmer threw a chair at China.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
After learning Bill Gates was defending their actions, they've decided working in China with censorship is evil after all, and they won't be doing it. They'll be on Oprah Monday to discuss it.
I was ambivalent about whether Google's actions constituted "doing evil," but, after Gate's support, I'm sure it's evil, now.
For a second there I though Google might be a bad guy, but if Bill says they're still cool then they must still be cool.
"This is considered plagiarism."
Having the dark prince voice his support certainly does not change my view of google for the better.
Do not forget that both Google and Gates speak from the position of a BUSINESSMAN! Not as a human rights activists, citizen or politician!
So "There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China." does not mean that It was right" but it does mean "There was no better option to earn money"...
The Right Thing can be different when viewed from different angles.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
... why didn't you do the same for MSN?
Well, now that the Devil himself agreed with Google's actions, seems like the Do No Evil policy got a little fine writing under it:
"... unless it's for profit"
/sarcasm
In other news, Google announces pop-ups, floaters, and interstitial ads. No kidding.
(with serious, worried face)
Because the world has changed after 9/11. It is okay to be dicks now.
- Mik.
'access to the outside world is preventing more censorship'
...What?!?
No, you idiot. Access to the outside world is prompting more censorship (but less effectivenes). You fail English.
The critics may decry this move, but would China be better off with no Google at all in your opinion?
The comments so far seem to reflect exactly what I saw coming the second I read the headline.
/.
If MS censors in China, MS is evil and money grubbing and should be stopped.
If Google censors in China they're actually improving freedom in China just by being there.
If MS defends Google censoring China, MS is evil, Google is Good.
Wecome to
Google hasn't done anything countless other companies have done. But because thits Google the press goes crazy with it. This is laughable to say the least. The more China gets exposed to influences from other countries, the better off they are. Google alone can't dictate policy in China. But once they are established, change can occur.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I was willing to bet that the exchange of information would benefit China. Then I also feel that anything Bill Gates says is good, is in fact bad. So can someone please help me?
I'll get modded down for this but I don't really care what they do in China.
Well I do but I won't feel any more worse about it than I do about China in general.
It seems like it should be similar but I think of it as completely different than the US, or other wesertn countries.
Basically China can do whatever it wants.
Of course those are those who think that you should boycott anything that does business there. That would mean you have to leave the US and stop buying most products.
This applies to both Google and MS.
Now yes I do think censorship as bad but it isn't the same in other places.
I can't really explain it though.
P.S. I noticed that when someone mentions they will be modded down in a post it actually gets modded up.
I don't mind the karma loss I just like lots of replies.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Don't want to deprive Bill Gates the potential licensing fees that Microsoft could charge for Windows Vista. It's hard being a billionaire when the goal of being a trillionaire is so far away. Steve Jobs might get there first with his Disney empire.
There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China, he argued.
He then added. Hell aslong as they have money and a good business relationship they can even high jack our planes and slam them into buildings.
This is a complex issue, and I don't claim to know the best way to encourage China to become a more open and free society. Heck, I don't even know how to encourage my own country to become more free, what with Dubya playing dictator and the so-called opposition party acting like lap dogs.
But the one thing I can say for sure in all this is that if I was a Chinese-American or a Chinese national who worked for Google, or Yahoo, or MS, I'd sure be feeling like an Uncle Tom right about now. Or is that an Uncle Wang? I'm not sure. But knowing that I was helping restrict the information access of some of my distant relatives, I'd sure feel like crapola.
But really, aren't all men supposed to be brothers? Aren't we all related, at some distant point in the far past? So to me, anyone who works for Google or one of the other companies helping to build the "Great Firewall" ought to be taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves... am I an Uncle Wang? Am I doing what I can to help my fellow man, or am I profiting from their oppression?
And the fact that Bill Gates says Google's actions are a good thing sure would not make me feel one iota better....
When I'd stop people from talking badly about a slutty girl in hopes that I would later get in her pants.
:)
Maybe Bill is cozying up to Google to get some 'nookie'?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
the pot calling the kettle white
Censorship leads to freedom.
Totalitarianism births democracy.
Benevolent societies are a natural byproduct following shareholder interests.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
This demonstrates so clearly that Gates' supposedly charitable work is nothing but a PR exercise. If he is willing to help China, that demonstrates he doesn't really care about other people, so long as he makes a profit or looks good. Fucking disgusting hypocrites. That goes for Google, too. What's with these people who make grand statements about the good they are doing in the world, but then go totally against what they supposedly believe?
... and then they built the supercollider.
If I'm going down, I'm going to bring everyone else down as well!
My page.
...you so you decide to go over there and see if he needs a hand with his new deck. Oh, and you also give him a nice new baseball bat that he says he needs for, uh, batting practice. After all, you have a far better chance of reforming him by rewarding him, right?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I work in a country where pornography is illegal, so whenever I set up a network I have to install a content filter as due diligence. Personally, I consider abuse of office resources to be a human resource issue, and I make it very clear to management that no filtering technology I can install will obviate the need for a clear Acceptable Use Policy and careful monitoring by staff and management.
I'm not entirely comfortable about blocking content on the Internet, as it's failure prone and IMO removes the responsibility from where I believe it should lie - squarely on the shoulders of the individual members of the organisation. I also find that the local attitude toward the human body extremely unhealthy and socially repressive. But because failure on my part to actively uphold the law of the land could result in my deportation and, more importantly, could harm the development organisation for whom I work, I hold my nose and install the filter anyway.
I still believe that the work I'm doing - bringing the Internet to places where it has never existed before - has more advantages than drawbacks. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles and to go ahead with this.
That said, I am not working for the local government. Quite the contrary; I work for civil society organisations who spend a great deal of their time and energy keeping the government responsive to the needs of the people. I feel quite ambivalent about companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google, who are in effect doing the government's work for it.
Gates' logic seems to run as follows:
I've tried to weigh the kind of compromises I'm willing to make in the course of trying to benefit society in the country where I work against the purported benefit that accrues to the people of China as a result of the presence of these tech corporations, and for reasons that I can't express very well, I still feel that avarice is leading Gates and co. to make rationalisations.
Anyway, this post is not really trying to prescribe so much as to suggest that the moral and ethical ground is not nearly as clear on either side as we might like. I emphatically disagree with the argument that corporations are amoral and should act only for profit, but at the same time, I have little patience for those who allow Platonic ideals to control their real world behaviour.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Just because Google is an American company, it is not within reason for it to impose American ideology on another nation. While doing business within a market sponsored and regulated by another government, it is only fair that you play by their rules. Google is NOT a liberation army, they are not defenders of democracy or freedom; nor is it their right to assume such a role in a foreign land. Google is a business, a business with shareholders who demand results, results which include expanding into other markets via legal means. Google is in China to offer a product or service and, in a hybrid free-market/command-economy, you must yield to he who allows you to peddle your goods on his front yard. In the end, it all means that regardless of how we the people, the employees of Google, or some loud-mouthed Senators feel, if you want to play in China, you must obey Chinese law.
The point can also be made that Google did not have to enter the Chinese market, given those stipulations, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export. I fail to see any semblance of a moral dilemma here.
By undermining our trust, this re-opened the game for Microsoft.
Bill, if you want to win the Internet (at least in the western world) - just uncensor China - and you will have stolen the moral high ground from Google. I'd switch. Your search results are good enough; and if it weren't that I mistrust Microsoft so much today I probably wouldn't be using Google.
... these things are dangerous. Bill say's that Google does good things, ergo it must be evil, but Google is not evil.
... it may turn slashdot into a time-warp-black-hole-troll-flamewar-thingy sucking the entire universe in and ending all things.
Why is that dangerous
The end is near!!!
Google's Reply: "It commends Google for doing business in China. Put the lotion in the basket!"
Man, I gotta hand it to him, great move...now everyone's gonna hate google even more! I mean, they're doing something Satan himself says is good!
A lot of people misinterpret Google.cn as being the chinese version of Google.com, even though they still offer the unfiltered version at Google.com. It seems to me as if google are just playing by china's rule in order to get the extra traffic, and more importantly the extra money.
Business Voyeur
The goal of every company is to make money. Google has an opportunity to make more money in China, so they are taking it.
The Pope annouces he defends catolithism. News at 11.
Gee, Slashdot, where are the news that matter
Most of the comments here and the other articles on the subject follow the "everything or nothing" mentality.
This is typical when asking for opinions of people not directly affected by the matter. Most of you being outside China, it is easy to claim that you would rather not use Google at all instead of use a reliable service with certain "sensitive" pages filtered.
If you put yourself in the position of a Chinese Internet user, the situation quickly gets different.
Google is a powerful tool, the benefits of which reach far beyond looking up the human rights sites on the Internet (as important as that may be on its own). Depriving China of Google's services is far worse development for Chinese citizens than what Google chose to do.
Also don't forget that it's a lot easier to control a population with overall less reach to information sources. Even if Google filters certain pages, the rest of the information is still an important tool in the fight against censorship and human freedoms.
As China's population gets increasingly better informed and educated, it will be increasingly difficult to control them in the manners we see now or in the past.
So I applaud Bill Gates for taking stand on the matter, never mind if it is to defend Microsoft's own policy or out of principle.
I think alot of people are missing the point.
Google is restricting some sites. Yes. But by having servers for the Google Search, the users in China will be able to access content much more quickly. Ie, instead of a slow and unreliable search page, they will now have a high speed and reliable search page.
The only issue is that terms will be censored, as the government determines words that need censoring.
By making information search faster and easier in China, this opens up the minds of people using the net and the people they talk to. It makes the idea of freedom of information more prevelant and better accepted.
By not choosing to enter China, the alternative was that people would stop using Google because it was unusable in China due to dropped connections, poor speeds, etc. People would need to then use state-controlled search engines which could be shutdown outright.
People are saying it's a blow to human rights. I see it as a step forward for human rights. A tiny step, but a step forward nonetheless. Companies and people carrying the idea of freedom of information needs to start making more in-roads into China, and by extension, the Chinese Government's mindset.
The best way to combat opressive governmental systems is to spread the idea of a better system.
What people don't understand is that Google's going into China was probably something which Google negotiated upon from a disadvantaged position. China doesn't care for Google being in China. To be able to be in China and serve search results is a big boon, even with the restrictions. A boon to Google, for sure, but a boon to the people who live in China and want to use Google to search for information and new ideas.
Microsoft isn't really defending Google in the article. They are defending the idea of doing business in China. They are defending the concept that there is significant business opportunity to be had for companies doing business in China. If investors decide to back away from China as a market, that impacts Microsoft, who wants to increase their business in China.
It isn't so much that they are helping Google so much as keeping their ability to invest in China open.
Groups and organizations with ideas which would be considered radical in comparison to opressive governments are often times taking an all or nothing philosophy to oppression. Ie, all access or none at all. Which do you think is better for the people being oppressed?
By forcing an all-or-nothing decision/approach, you back the governments into a corner or you tie the hands of businesses. Often times, to the point where there isn't so much a discussion as there is a shouting match.
Change comes gradually. Sometimes decades, if not centuries. Yes, oppression is wrong. No, it won't change over night. Yes, the filtering of Google isn't optimal. But Google's presence in China helps to increase the visibility of an outside company and still offers a better mechanism to access the web's information. It isn't a great big step, but it's a step forward.
People are so stuck in the mindset of: do what we want or we will sanction you. Except that can't be leveraged against China because they are the biggest buyers of US bonds. They are a major investor in the US government. So sanctions against them is highly unlikely.
Gotta find that middle ground that everyone can agree on at the moment and find a better one down the line.
Google isn't evil. Not from my point of view. They are trying to do the best they can given the restrictions presented to them. Microsoft is hardly cheering them. The last thing Microsoft wants is Google to have a strong footing in China. Microsoft is only defending the idea of doing business in China, not Google's doing business in China.
Winged Power Photography
Bear in mind that Gates was speaking at the Davos summit, a cosy club of self-appointed (and probably self-regarding) movers and shakers from around the world. Not a few of these people would trample their grandmother - never mind a few Chinese workers - if they thought there was a buck on the other side of the road. Gates was never going to talk down capitalism, technology or China to an audience like this, no matter which companies are involved.
The one thing all these extremely rich folks seem to take as gospel is that despite the Chinese government backing capitalism and dictorial repression at the same time, China is the future, China is where the money is, China is about to become unimaginably prosperous, etc., etc. Received opinion has said the same before about states that soon after imploded in war, chaos, financial collapse and disaster of one kind or another. For myself, I wouldn't bank on received opinion being right this time either.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
.... at least try to use ones that hold some water.
IN the analogy you are using, you can refer the matter to an arbiting authority: the police.
In the case of Google, there is no referee, the referee is the client. And the judge, and everything.
If you wanna play in China (and if all your competition is alreading doing so, you must do so) then you are going to play under Chinese rules and brush up your Mandarin.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
google did the right thing. and better yet, they did it very wisely. Read their blog.
It is all about money and how big profit the company can make. The big company doesn't care about the pepole. Long as they get more $$ or (insert euro money logo here) they don't care about anything else. Microsoft is no diffrent then rest of the Mega-super companyes out there. Google is also no diffrent then the rest of the crowd, they are just smarter in hideing it.
Google is right to change the results of South African searchers looking for images and information about the Sharpeville massacre because in the end it's better for Google to be in the South African apartheid market than out of it, and they'd be out if they let them see images like this. Giving them access to some information is better than none and little bits will slip through because you can't censor everything.
What about the ANC you say? Well the South African government considers them terrorists so it's only really obeying the laws of South Africa to change the results of a search for them.
I think it's clear Google shouldn't boycott the South African government because in the end what can Google really do? What would a boycott ever achieve?
Google is staying true to it's motto "Don't be evil" by making compromises that you absolutists simply don't understand.
The US alone can't dictate policy in Iran. But once they start sending Iran foreign aid, change can occur... oh, wait, that's the most asinine thing I've ever heard.
America has a ethnocentric, xenophobic culture. People here love preaching about human rights in other places yet they constantly ignore the discrimination and stereotypes that are perpetuated here.
It's all over the media, during late night shows, in movies, in TV shows. How Asian leads are there in any show or movie here?
Would Americans be willing to watch a movie about Asians in an Asian language that doesn't deal with Kung Fu? Chinese people are much more open-minded when it comes to watching Americans on the screen.
Why don't you guys fix the racist culture in your country first before complaining about human rights? It's as if you want to complain about other cultures and places so you can feel superior.
I've seen many comments badmouthing Google or any other companies for complying to Chinese government's rules. I think it is time for me to have a say, I will probably be modded down for this, but at least you see a different perspective.
Look, not the whole world is the West. Many of you think that everyone in the world would want to be like Westerners; want freedom of speech, want freedom of this of that... but guess what? No! Some people actually do not need freedom of speech or freedom to watch pr0n on the net. Well not yet at least... Eastern countries have different cultures than the Wests'. Differences in social structures, values, religions etc. Openness is good for improvement I think, but it should not happen immidiately. Their societies work that way for ages, asserting foreign (Western) values in an instant may break those societies. Besides, some of Western cultures are bad btw. So if China wants to set their own rules, stop bickering. It is none of your business.
Say you have a very expensive carpet in your house and you want people to take their shoes off when entering. Google is taking its shoes off, but some crowd outside jeering, protesting Google because it respects your rules. WTF!
I've been comparing some of the differences between the chinese version and the US one.
.cn: "Taiwanese Independence". Note that the Independence Party is completly gone from the results. Guess they are subversive.
Take a look at the Google US search for "Tiawanese Independence. Note that the first result is the Tiawanese Independence Party, and #2 describes how Bush Opposes it.
Now, let's take a look at the french site, to see if the results are similar - "Taiwanese Independence". Very similar results.
Let's try this on
Far more insidious than actually banning certain searches is manipulating the results themselves to tout the party line. Leave a few fringe sites up, so you don't appear to completly control things, but remove any site you consider to truly be a threat. After all, they are doubleplus ungood.
Shouldn't that be pot, kettle, clean... not white? I once had someone point out to me that they felt pot, kettle, black was one of the few socially acceptable racial slurs left, and I responded by saying I had always thought black meant black with soot/grime/whatever. it just meant dirty. Hearing pot, kettle, white however makes me wonder if they weren't correct after all. Not saying you're a neo nazi skinhead or anything wes33, you probably picked white because it is opposite of black as far as colors go, but still, in the PC climate of America...
For Bill "If you have the money, we WILL come" Gates to defend the action is expected. It's not likely that someone from Google will throw a chair at the Chinese goverment and have them bow down.
Everyone that has a problem with Google's choice needs to stop buying anything made in China. Must be nice to have double standards. Bad Google, oh this Vacuum is really nice for 19.99.
Give me a break.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
According to Wikipedia, there are 63 million card-carrying Communist Party members in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_C hina), out of the entire population of 1.3 billion. In other words, less than 5% of the population are lording over the other 95% in a country that the Constitution stipulates that only one party, namely Chinese Communist Party, can govern the nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_pa rties_in_China).
During the period of Apartheid in South Africa, American companies that did business with the white-minority government used similar rationale to justify their investments in South Africa. Their basic argument was that if they did not go into South Africa, poor black South Africans would suffer. Most people did not buy their argument then, and those few who did were in the camp of "look, business is business, there's nothing wrong in trying to make a buck". The only saving grace for Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, et al, is that people do have short memories.
Sun and Fun
Even if, as you say, it isn't the responsibility of Google to affect change on the government of China, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't act based on a Western standard of morality and ethics. It's kind of like saying you'd never be a vegetarian because the meat industry is so huge that your decision not to buy meat would never have an impact on it. True; if destroying the meat industry were your goal, that would be a pretty futile way to do it. If, on the other hand, you wanted to have personal integrity and act out of the conviction of your own ethics, then becoming a vegetarian (if that's what you believe in) makes perfect sense.
And you could go even further and say, if Google won't put pressure on the Chinese government to change its ways, then who will? Multinational corporations are among the most powerful societal forces in the world today -- some would say much more powerful than governments. Maybe we shouldn't sit idly by and accept the notion that the ideal corporation is an aloof, amoral money-machine. Maybe it would be better if corporations started acting like responsible citizens of a global village and based their decisions on the ethical standards of their shareholders?
Presumably there are few Google shareholders who, if asked, would say they are actually in favor of the Chinese stand on human rights. If you're going to tell me that there isn't so much as a chance in hell that the majority of those shareholders might actually favor using the influence of their money to persuade China to modify its policies ... well, then I'd say you are a very cynical person. I'd say it's very possible. Maybe nobody has put the question to them yet, because the kneejerk policy is just to act how corporations always act: Get the money and fuck the ethics.
Breakfast served all day!
This comes across like too many movie stars who think because their paid ungodly sums of money to act up in front of a camera, and recording artists who may have sold millions of record albums, that suddenly they've become experts in foreign affairs as well.
The sad thing is that too many people still listen to these few as if they really do have special knowledge or expertise denied all the rest of us and only imparted now through their own good graces.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...where all you had to is run some javascript to get unfiltered results.
MSN and Yahoo! behave much worse, from a do-no-evil POV. Consider this writeup in the Economist:
Now don't get me wrong. I dislike Google; I think their products and services are in poor taste. But certainly, the company deserves better than the slamming it's getting here on Slashdot, and I don't doubt they're at least partially motivated by the hope that they're working to improve things in China. If it was purely about profit, after all, they'd have opened Gmail to Chinese citizens (or have they already, contrary to the article?).
China is starting to look more and more like Cuba every day...
Is Google supposed to do the opposite of Microsoft, even when Microsoft is right?
In this case, Google's choices were:
1: Self-censor as per the PRC's wishes
2: Let the PRC do the censoring much more crudely
3: Be banned from the Chinese market
Which is the best solution? It is obvious.
I disagree about the "lesser evil two evils". There is no evil here at all. Rather, it is a question of how much GOOD Google will do. Their choices are some, less, and none, as noted above. Yes, "lots" would be a great choice, but PRC won't allow that. Google should not take the blame for PRC's ignorance.
Google is a business founded on the premise of "do no evil." If I were a shareholder, I think I'd have a right to be pissed. Results can preclude evil.
We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export.
No, we need more fair trade and less 'free trade.' China sells whatever they want into our market with few, if any restrictions. Try selling American made anything there and see if you get the same deal. Of course, nobody on capital hill (yes, I misspelled that on purpose) has the balls to stand up for fair trade because we owe China lots of money. This is what you get when you "starve the beast."
Of course Microsoft also helps China sensor computing and they are also invited to Congress to discuss potential new laws to prevent human rights abuses (see slashdot story submitted shortly before this one) so when Bill Gates defends Google he really defends Microsoft which does the same things Google is being accused of.
Are you sure you're asking right question? Lot of people seem to think it's OK that Western companies do self censorship in China.
Argument goes that it's allright because they're(chinese) are becoming more and more capitalists and that will make them more open as wealth will create an pluralist open society. So it makes sense to jump in wagon before they're open and accomodate to Chinese goverments cencorship. Because this somehow supposedly helps China becoming more open. Very nice trail of though, especially if you're about to make money and need support of Chinese goverment.
It's bit like diffrence between banning CNN or just banning parts you don't like of their broadcast. Diffrence is between independent news source and one that is part of a goverment. For a critic of goverment, it's better to have banned source of information than a censored one. In fact, I think Chinese goverment can show way to chinese population that it can tame big Western companies and isolate them from ordinary people. It can even say 'look we have multiple news sources, we're open. If you claim something isn't told, how it is that all these multiple [b]Western[/b] sources of news and information don't report it then too?'.
And where goes the line with companies wont' cross? You tell me if companies will withdraw millions of investment if new Tianman Square happens because freedom of press? Or will they protect their investments there instead? If they now are ready to compromise their ethics before they had made huge commitments there, how they will act once they've committed themselves there fully?
I think Great Chinese Wall just got lot bigger. And most of it can't be anymore seen from orbit either. It's now electronic and moves through companies like Google or Yahoo.
But I grand that power of capitalism is amazing. When China was communist dictarship, nothing like now could have been tough. Western companies doing self censorship for sake of Chinese goverment? Unthinkable! Now as they're still undemocratic but capitalistic, they get their ways almost without asking.
Lesson 1: if you're fan of dictarship, be capitalistic one for Heavens sake!
Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows has the trouble seen me, even I sometimes wonder why I write these line
Why is their (Microsoft's) censorship software ineffective?
Dur...
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
As a Chinese, nobody cares about this topic. Don't be evil as Google motto said but don't be the God either. First, business is business. No need to reiterate. Second, don't want to raise to political level, but it seems everybody insists. Political right or not is standing point problem. If you think something is political wrong, that is probably right on your competitor's or even enemy's point of view. So you can argue but don't educate Chinese. Third, cultural and philosophy are entirely different from America in China. Personal short term interests have to oblige mass and long term interests. We can sacrifice personal rights if that can save others instead of cultural here to respect personal rights absolutely. Do something useful. Stop worrying about someone else issue where someone else never worry about it at all.
Bill Gates defended Microsoft's poor track record with regards to security and operating system stability, stating that "We felt it was better to get our OS to market and give people something to work with, rather than wait around for Apple to get off its ass and become part of the Wintel team."
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Bill Gates quit microsoft and join google.
...it's the Chinese people's fight. If Google goes in and strongarms the Chinese into accepting freedom of speech, it'll be an American company forcing an American right. If the Chinese people, instead, are given the a glimpse of freedom, but have to fight themselves to get the whole thing, it'll be Chinese people forcing an inalienable Chinese right. You can't force a people to be free if they don't understand what oppression is. If the Chinese people have to fight, fight against their own government, their own rules, their own culture, to be free, it'll stick.
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
I cant remember who said it in the initial /. article about Google complying with China's law(s), except that the post was towards the top of the page...
Anyway what he basically said was that, hey, maybe its better for Google to censor stuff in the Chinese version of the search engine, if they didnt China could have just cut off ALL internet connections and then the people of china wouldnt have ANY exposure to western society. Basically the guy was tryin to say that its better for the people of China to be able to use google and have exposure to western society than for Google to not go along with China and just get blocked again (across the whole country of China) or all their internet access cut off.
BTW: why aint this in tech also, I mean, ya, its political, but its also tech...
I posted this in the Google story, but, of course; it's also relevant to this story. I think Bill's on the right track for once (whoa!):
I completely disagree with the sentiment that Google is 'being evil' by agreeing to censor search results in accordance with Chinese law. Google's job is not to legislate or protest political issues. Their job is to provide search results to those who need them.
It seems to me that, without google, the largest population of human beings in the world would be missing out on some of the best parts of the internet. Granted, many of those parts will be censored, but we all know censorship isn't ever going to be 100% effective, anyway.
What China needs is information. The more information we can get piped into Chinese cultural consciousness, the sooner their society will be able to emerge from this dark cloud. The internet is exactly the tool to provide that information, and if google is able to deliver it better than anyone else, then I say more power to them. I think it's obvious that our government hasn't had much luck in changing the Chinese government by scolding them or leveraging political and economic sanctions. Having said that, it seems pretty obvious to me that we should consider a different approach. From my perspective, that's exactly what google is doing. There's an old saying:
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Just reminder, only 0.000000001% Chinese willing to visit western web site since they are in English! Whether government blocks them or not, do you think that matters? Actually, the main reason to sensor is to control domestic information which most Chinese agree on that since there are too much craps on net.
The End is near!
I don't think I could live in that kind of country -- where things are keep hidden from the people by the government -- I've never been so proud to be an American with its good old-fashion monarchy.
ya, they dont want their people posting on the internet and having other people in China read it and find out about how bad their government is, along with having the rest of the word finding the same thing out (how bad the Chinese govt' is)
But, so you mean to say that the Chinese version of Google is in English, not Chinese?
BTW: like I said, it's from some other guy's post on the initial article about Google cooperating with China - I just happened to agree with it after reading it and realizing that the poster had a valid point. I just typed it in because I couldnt remember the name of the poster and didnt feel like going through the thread again to find it (ya, I know, I'm a lazy bastard)...
I disagree. I believe that no Google is better than some Google. It is much better to have no information that to have your brain filled with propaganda. The citizens won't be able to distinguish government propaganda from fact.
Personally, China needs to change its totalitarian policies. The government is evil, and its people will be oppressed as long as that government operates under its current methods. The free world should also do a better job developing and competing, before totalitarian China starts controlling everything. All of our goods already comes from there, and they are getting much more powerful each year. A powerful totalitarian government is dangerous to any free society in the world. What will happen if ultra-powerful China gets more evil and start attacking other countries?
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions :
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government. ;-) :-(.
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Yahoo and every other business ), I'm not that evil
Yea, sorry Google, I understand the business motives and all, but "do no evil" would mean setting up and publishing information about ways to circumvent censorship, not abiding by it... although maybe there's a line between "do no evil" and "do good no matter what the cost", I suppose... but such censorship as is imposed by the Chinese government, to the point where you can't Google the Dali Lama ? Yea, sorry. It's evil no matter how I look at it. I'm trying here. Google may just have to lose that motto.
Of course, as U.S. politics constantly reminds us, we all have different standards for what is 'evil'. Plenty of folks question the non-evil nature of gathering so much data on users that you'd interest the federal government in the results... and non-expiring browser cookies, for that matter. Of course, businesses are in business to make money, anyone under illusions to the contrary should probably wake up now...
I have to agree...
If your so opposed to google setting up their business and trying to comply with local laws, as they do the world over, then you should stop supporting the chinese goverment by buying their products.
Of course would anyone actually stop?
Lets face it we've become dependant on their cheep breakable junk.
Its sad in a way, theirs no more quality or longjevity in things these days.
Oh and mod the parent up, or atleast insightfull.
Very well said. I don't like majority of Microsoft products, but I have to give it to Bill Gates for making bigger contribution to the society than I do, by about 100,000 times.
Not advocating Chinese opression and "dickedness" but as a country, isn't the government allowed to do whatever the hell it wants, unless it interferes with other nations? I mean, if they start nuking people... but this is censorship. Somebody said (I'd look it up but I'm too lazy - just took a midterm about him too...) that a nation was ruled by a social contract. (Oh yeah, wasn't it Rousseau? Hold on, google likes my answer! Good.) Essentially, he said that a nation could do whatever the hell it wants, but if the people don't like it, out they go. That's what Parliment did, in the "Glorious Revolution" (i think). Essentially, when the gov't falls out of favor, they get hammered. So, as much as Chinese might not like censorship, they obviously aren't too pissed about it. Yes, I know they're opressive, but the general will is, and always will be, more powerful than any gov't. Long-winded, I know. Anyways, how is Google (or Microsoft, or Gates, or MSN) doing anything wrong? They are only complying with their stated policy. Yes, it's a slippery slope, but an opressive nation demanding that content be filtered, or else blocked outright. What's new? And, the buisness's interest aren't idealistic. They're buisnesslike. Duh.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
WTF?
What does the totalitarian Chinese government have to do with the Chinese culture? So you think Chinese culture supports running people over with tanker trucks and bulldozers? So you think Chinese culture supports killing millions of people just because they don't believe in communism? So you think Chinese culture is about exploiting workers? So you think Chinese culture is about spewing propaganda? That remark that you made is an insult to the Chinese culture. Government is not culture.
And what's Western about the values of freedom? "Some people don't need free speech;" take that sentence and shove it up a place where it rightfully belongs. Basic freedom of speech is respected in all cultures in the world. Freedom of speech is a natural right that no culture or government provides you; you are born with it. If you can't even speak, then why do you exist?
You should like a totalitarian apologist who probably grew up in a totalitarian country and believe everything that The All-Mighty Imperial State told you. You believe that freedom is a Western conspiracy and an attack on local values. You believe that promoting freedoms is disrespectful to the culture. Shame on you, apologist. Go read some real books, like 1984, read about the real Chinese culture, and read some philosophy, too. Then you can come back here and post something with real insight.
Look, blocking information, expecially political information (google.cn search results for tawain independence, ect) is considered by I would guess most Americans to be evil. Blocking political information means subversion and manipulation of the populace, and most would consider this an evil act.
Yes, overall, China benefits from some small amount of information that trickles through. But the action getting there is itself evil (ie killing one person to save many is still an evil act, for taking innocent life is evil, although humanity may benefit overall from lives saved).
I do not blame google for wanting to tap into the Chinese market, but it is hypocritical of them to state they do no evil while filtering political results.
There is a fundamental moral difference between, say, giving you a dollar (when I could hypothetically give you two) and taking a dollar from you.
"Cooperating" with an evil person/regime is neither moral or immoral, per se. What matters is how your actions affect their victims/citizens. In this case, Google is making the absolutely correct choice if its goal to better the lives and information access of ordinary Chinese citizens.
Bill Gates defends Google doing evil by claiming that they're really doing good. Now nobody knows who to flame and who to praise.
If you no longer trust Google, the best thing to do would be not use their services.
When it comes to searching, you could always try one of the numerous independent search engines. There's Gigablast, Entireweb, and Mojeek, just to name a few.
Of course, there are numerous other news and email services out there, so you don't have to use GMail.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Koreans make the best movies in the world, no kidding.
Something I haven't seen addressed:
1. Most users never go beyond the first page of search results
2. Most internet users are not technically savvy, and likely to be lazy
3. More young people are being born who do not know history yet.
4. Google is seen as a symbol of freedom, and it is likely that the Chinese think it a reliable source of information compared to the government
What this amount to, is Google putting their "stamp of approval" on information that is increasingly exposed to a young audience. if they see Google saying the same thing as their government - that might be enough for them to stop questioning the government, and accept the propaganda.
... and then they built the supercollider.
I think we should back up and consider this differently. While I support the national (and personal) sovereignty of all nations (and individuals), we should compare two asian countries: China and Myanmar (or Burma).
Both countries have proven track records of jailing political dissidents, allowing child labor, preventing unions from forming,
However, Myanmar is an international pariah both politically and economically. But China? They are the darlings of every businessman and diplomat lately.
The question I'm posing is: should Google (MS, Yahoo, etc...) do business with Myanmar? or stop doing business with China?
I'm still wondering how Google accepting China's demands to do business with their country is any different than Amazon bowing to Germany by filtering out Nazi paraphenalia. Each country has its own definition of unacceptable material. The USA (and virtually every other country on earth) believes child porn is taboo. But it's still a choice that was made, to filter and prosecute those who deal with it.
Ultimately, what people are complaining about isn't Google buckling to a country's demands, because that happens all the time. The niggling detail is that the demands are coming from a Communist government, not a democratic one, where the people themselves did not vote for these restrictions.
I'm sad to say it, but the Chinese have all the right in the world to impose whatever law they like in their country, and the same right to make demands on businesses who want to deal with their peoples. These are typically called tarriffs and licenses to bricks and mortar businesses.
I also support the Chinese people's right to change if that's what they want, but it's an Americanism and an indulgence of mine that I think is shared among democratic nations. I'm hoping that access to information is a catalyst for that change. Time will tell.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
I'm an American businessman. I have offices in the US and I have offices in Beijing. The vast majority of the time, I find Chinese rules to be both restrictive and rigged to favor people in the government or their relatives/friends who just happen to benefit from their official decrees. Fine. Those are the rules. You learn to work within them. The average Chinese person on the street knows good and well that most things they are fed through the official media are censored. I just returned from Beijing a few days ago and since I'm in the tech industry (and speak Mandarin) I asked a few people what they thought. They said they'd rather have some information from outside than none at all. And if you've ever been to China, you know that there are rules and then there are "the rules." There are many avenues of information flow in China. The "real" news might not make the "People's Daily", but Chinese like to "gossip" and genuine news tends to spread, whether the government likes it or not.
I agree wholeheartedly that the only way to dislodge the broken/corrupt government in China is to help create a middle class. That middle class is growing very quickly and it is only a matter of time before they begin to flex their financial/political muscle. As this last crop of 60+ year old Communist leaders dies off, I fully expect China to emerge a stronger and likely much more democratic country. My only hope is that we don't wind up with another "let's dig in our heels" Tiananmen Square confrontation before the geezers throw in the towel.
Hope springs eternal.
My husband currently has moderator points. He promised me that if I posted anything tonight that he would mod me up if I gave him a blow job. Yes, there are chicks on /.
M$ Certified Evil. Works for Sure.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Google already censors tons of stuff. Talking of their search engine only.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I just did a few searches. One for "sex", another for "porn", and yet another for "Tiananmen" from the U.S. I ran these searches against google.cn, and got results including sexual and pornographic ones, and a result for Wikipedia's article on Tiananmen.
Despite hitting google.cn, I got pages I could access. The only difference is, I hit them from here in the U.S..
Does that mean Google's filter is failing at the .cn site? Or does that mean that filtering is done in China after Google.cn returns these results?
I think I must be missing something here.
Damn. The moderator button isn't working.
SiO2
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The problem with relativism is that there's no where to draw the line on anything. The Holocaust becomes justifiable since it is an expression of "differences in social structures, values, religions, etc." ANYTHING is justifiable on those terms. Which is why relativism always falls apart.
I think human rights are universally valid; just because they violate some nations particular cultural habits doesn't invalidate them, and just because they've "Western" doesn't invalidate them either. Individual liberty, government by the consent of the governed, equality under the law, and many others -- these are critical values, that when infringed, repress individuals and create tyrany.
China is a tyranical state -- it represses it's people politically, socially, economically. China violates basic human rights. Supporting the Chinese government and political system means supporting tyrany.
The least Google could do would be to disclose what they're censoring; I think if the world knew the things that the Chinese censored specifically, it would be more damaging to the government than not censoring Google at all.
Yes some CEO's are dictators, not all. You can be any kinda CEO you want, if you don't like how the other CEO's govern their companies, start your own company.
So, let's say that 20% of people would use google to find some information that may be considered to have something to do with politics. Of that 20%, let's say that some 70% would be ok for China, and another 30% is what they wanted banned. So, google is still functional in about 90% of all searches, that seems better than 0% to me. 100% of zero is zero, you have to negotiate sometimes.
Leaving aside the fictional aspects of your numbers, this argument in form is very faulty. If indeed you could run the numbers as you have, I suppose you could in a sense claim that Google is doing something that is 90% as good as an uncensored service. This is provided you assume all searches(censored and uncensored) are of equal importance, which is a big assumption.
But even if we allow this, you're missing half the equation: you have to look at both the intended benefits provided by the course of action, and the unintended harm.
It isn't just that Google will not go near politically hot topics (if that is even possible). It's that it will deliver skewed results. This means users of Google's search engine, in your hypothetical 10% case, are not just missing the benefits of a unbiased search engine, they are actually being misinformed.
Context is everything in information. Skillful liars know this, and can use it to lie without every uttering a falsehood. By removing context, it is possible to reduce the amount of information somebody has by giving them more data. If I told you that 4/5 dentists recommond Droobles gum for their patients who chew gum, but neglect to say that 19/20 dentists say you shouldn't chew gum (although Droobles is better than gum that actually tastes good), I've just lied to you with out saying anything false. If I told you that sales are up 80% without saying that costs of sales are up 200%, I've just done the same thing.
Now, if we assume that all queries are equally important, and that results are skewed only 10% of the time, using your kind of math, we might claim that Gooogle.cn is 80% as good as "real" Google. But that's a terrible assumption. People are more motivated to lie about important things than unimportant. Suppose I'm selling you a car that has two defects: it needs a new right rear tail light and by the way it was dunked in salt water during a hurricane last year. If I tell you about the tail light, I'm not being 50% honest.
If we assume that people are most apt to lie about the most important things, and we accept your 10% figure, I'd have to conclude that Google is not doing individual Chinese people any favors.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
On the other hand, perhaps it might sometimes be good for us to challenge, rather than accept, social standards and practices?
A lot of people are doing various searches on google.com and google.cn and shouting 'look, see, censorship!'
My question is what prevents a Chinese person from simply typing google.com rather than google.cn in the address bar?
Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
where Peter annexes his next door neighbors pool and he gets letters of praise from Serbia, Iran, Iraq, etc.
I wonder if we'll see anyone resigning at Google in protest...
Mod headline 5, Funny.
I see the arch enemy is trying to gain support from fans in order to make his revenge better.
All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!! chown -r us
Google redirects visitors based on the user's IP address: Go to Google.com in France, and you get to Google.fr. I imagine it's the same in China.
and Microsoft is a really really great company...
FOR ME TO POOP ON!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I was in China in October, and indeed, when going to google.com, the results would default to Chinese language results.
mahlen
1.3... billion... consumers.
No fucking shit Bill Gates defended Google.
I'm not here. This isn't happening.
At least google is keeping strong where it matters. They've refused a broad-assed patriot act -related at least- request from the feds. I don't give half a crap what they do to not fully improve a shithole country which embraces a dictatorship and pays it's economic backbone with bowls of rice.
When I can't use them in the US to search because I'm one Freedom of Information Act away from being in the papers, that's when I'll worry. I could give half a shit about some asshole with shitty luck enough to be born in China. I was born here, I'll likely die here, and I'll be goddamned if my ancsetors fought and bled to create a dying freedom in the form of constant monitoring by the GD Bush administration.
If George W. had half a clue about the fundamental values he professes, he would realize that his own country was founded to avoid bullshit monarchy repression of dissidents. He spit out some garbage about not respecting Hammas because it is dedicated to the destruction of a country...aren't we about to complete such an act in Iraq? Aren't the big-whigs about to blow apart hammas AKA the majority vote of Palestine the instant they have a reason? isn't that their platform?
I've known Jewish people and I'm pretty sure that I have quite a bit of Jewish heritage though not enough to be relgiosly affliliated. I've been told by several people that I look Jewish and I'm sure as hell circumsized. I'll be damned if I go down because of a religion that THE FUCKING ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T EVEN BUY INTO. Not to mention that, though I'm a minority I don't beLIEve in fairy tales period. I'm a fucking capitalist, I believe in darwinism and such.
Fuck it, it's like talking to a fencepost. For every post I make about religion having no place in the modern world I'm slapped on all sides by religious assholes who belive that their Keebler elves have the correct prophecy. I'm so tired of this shit I wish that the US had instituionalized Atheism...if that weren't such a damnable invasion of privacy...execpt they chose xtianity to enforce upon us. And by they I mean 90+ % of America. You're free...to be christian. You can say whatever you want...brother in Christ. Fuck them, you and me, we're all boned.
Don't want to pay your electric company? Invest in solar panels, a diesel or lp gas generator, thermocouples or whatever it takes.
I escape pretty much literally thousands of tv ads every day - I don't watch stations that air commercials.
You, by not erecting off grid energy sources for yourself and watching tv every day are contributing to that pollution that so bothers you. So turn off the bloody tv and save that energy. Use that time you used to waste being a couch potato lobbying your representatives.
You are addicted to a culture you despise and blaming the culture for reflecting the values you support. That's not culture's problem, and culture cannot fix itself.
I'm so sick of hearing about this. EVERY major services provider that wants to do business in a foreign market had sure as HELL respect said goverments rules.
America has laws, so do a lot of other countries. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less valid.
If ANYONE is the bad guy in this picture is the western journalists trying to pretend that we have any right to tell the Chinese government what is or isn't acceptable. As you said, its up to the people of China.
Just because the drug laws in the Netherlands are a little loose doesn't mean I can open up a "Smart" shop next to the local Wallmart. Sometime you simple have to revise your business plan.
Big.Fucking.Deal.
Quack, quack.
did Balmer threw his chair at Billy?
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
Rather that just saying that some results were omitted, they should list the exact number of sites that were omitted that have a higher rank than those shown on the current page. Then a Chinese citizen looking at the page of Tiananmen results might not be able to learn exactly what happened, but they would learn that something happened, and it's something that the rest of the world has a lot to say about.
Suggesting that a global company ignore the opportunites China represents or enter the market and then deliberately break the law is hardly useful.
Bring the debate back where it should be: on the laws/regulations in question.
So with the google bar in china display mao rank instead of page rank?
This is very smart from BG, trying to make Google looks like MS... I think it's the first time in history that someone has put a slur upon competitor by comparing it to own company...
I'd have been delighted if Google had stood up and told the Chinese government that it wouldn't go along. But Beijing has guns, and Google doesn't. I can't say I blame Google.
Here at home in the States, however, they're standing up to the Kaiser and his efforts to snoop on us all, under color of defending an antiporn law. Perhaps on this point, Google saw a fight it could win.
It's all about choosing your battles. Google couldn't win in China, and had to cut its losses. But they made a stand for the rights of its users in the case where they had a reasonable chance of success.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
And in other news Satan has been spotted buying ice skates
"There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China"...? Except the fact that Chinese companies use slave labourers? Gates has his head up his rectum as usual.
I don't see anything to suggest Cryptome.cn did a bait and switch of their Tiananmen page. More likely China hasn't filtered those results yet or put the question to the Cryptome.cn server.
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
You have ideas about what may be asked of your neighbor; likewise, American political culture is trying to figure out what it may rightfully (according to its own standards and logic) ask of America's neighbors. It may eventually come to agree with the views you have expressed, or perhaps in time it will arrive at some other conclusion.
Gee, I wonder why he is for Google's censorship in China? Oh, yeah thats right. More traffic for MSN.
Nice try, Bill, but China is not stupid. That kind of talk will ban Google AND MSN.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
The key word you used there, correctly, is 'want'. You want these things, but you aren't required to have them, nor do you need them. Therefore, they are optional.
So, seriously, try to be more sensitive to the role objective moral truth plays in my culture. It may be too late, though---perhaps the Asian model of valuing social consensus for its own sake will soon rule the world.
So, what's the deal here? Some of you feel that Google, being an American company, should just ignore Chinese law for the servers they have sitting on Chinese soil?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Yet, you whine and moan when China ignores the laws of other countries to produce those shiny region-free DVD players for $39 (which you go out and buy anyways).
Oh, and just for the record... Google is a corporation, not a government. As such, they have the right to do whatever they want with the data they collected, subject to contracts signed by the folks they collected it from. I trust you have a signed contract that says they aren't allowed to filter the contents of your web server? No? Ok then.
Of course he defended Google, he's in the same spot as them. If you were a POW, would you say POW's suck? Or would you say that about an individual next to you when you know everybody else hates you?
Good luck, if your answer is 'yes' to at least one of the above.
All publicly traded corporations are a democracy. They are reponsible to their shareholders
That makes them plutocracies, not democracies.
Name a democracy that isn't a plutocracy.
Or a communist one. In fact name any national government that isn't ruled by a select minority that represents the rich and powerful.
Of course with a democracy it is the quality of the opposition that makes a difference. Pity they too can't get elected if they are poor.
Meantime, is it possible for whichever ruling party to pass a law that forces Maffiosi to use Windows? (That's Microsoft Windows of course not the high diving platforms they are more usually associated with.)
"We are always upset that they aren't paying us for our products, but we're not going to pick up and go home," Mr Gates said.
So he's making all the idiots who pay full price for the software subsidize this oppressive government! OUCH! One more big reason to move to F/OSS.
How does piracy in a country that would not buy his wares due to their price being too high for the average Chinese wage packet affect other countries?
Whatever the reason the Chinese are not buying Windows, the cost to you and me is no different. Or are you saying that if the Indian and Chinese markets suddenly grew honest, Microsoft would reduce it's prices in the rest of the world?
Why would they do that? They don't even need the money now do they? They would still be stinking rich if they just put a 100% markup on the disks they sold.
And getting richer.
Or has the costs of producing a Windows CD suddenly risen to something stupid?
Shut the fuck up already, willya!
You have to remember that Google is a publicly owned company and it has a responsibility to make bigger profits. The CEO and decision makers at Google would literally be criminals if they did not perform an action (moving into China) that they knew would increase the companies profits, morals are irrelevant to profit.
Perhaps this is why the borg analogy of Microsoft (and other bigs) seems so apt.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
"Besides what is coming in Vista will make China look like a bunch of free speech liberals. I was really inspired by the bond film tomorrow never dies, that's me all over baby! The MPAA, RIAA and me will know every song or film you play"
We don't live in a perfect world and Bill Gates knows that well ; ideals exist as abstract paradigms and in that they look perfect like numbers , but they almost always need to be approximated in reality.
Bill obliquely suggests that by paying the price of some censorship chineses will buy themselves an information network that would not be implemented by an ideologically opposed government which is well aware of the dangers of propaganda, being an excellent producer of it. By incrementing the flow of information, Bill is suggesting , the most popular ideals will eventually find expression and the network will be there to help their propagation.
1. Premise : if you accept some censorship of internet
2. Conclusion: then you will have an intranet which will help greatly build an habit for unrestricted information exchange
That's certainly possible, yet the western experience is suggesting people is using the net MOSTLY like a n advanced television set, getting CONTENT from some an increasingly restricted number of servers..maybe writing some blog and sending some email, both very easily monitored.
I can imagine filtering technology being used to find "dangerous dissenters" and turning their words INSTANTLY into incomprensible noise or benign disagreement with the party line...it wouldn't be suppressing information, it would be reshaping it in realtime so that the ruling party has less problem.
Such filtering technology shouldn't exist, but as long as demand backed by a lot of money exists somebody will work hard on it and implement it , while making it illegal will not be a problem. Like cigarettes, their consumption for personal use shouldn't be forbidden, its mass production should..then people would learn how hard it is to produce their drug.
Similarly, let people invent themselves their censoring technology without government oblique financing.
Do you now see how relativism, when combined with individualism, eventually produces crime? I just want you to understand how critical the fiction of moral law is to the welfare of western society.
this may be OT, but this is an easy, no brainer you "rocket scientists" seem to have overlooked. instead of arguing about the pros and cons of google's decision and gates, may be you should investigate where all those shipping containers floating across the pacific ocean are originating from. i know where they're headed, i've roofed some MAJOR square feet of space here in and around chicago. funny that all these big ass pre-cast concrete boxes have railroad facillities and miles of truck dock doors and are usally parked up close to major interstates.
thanks, i'll sit down and wait for my answer...
Serenity now, insanity later.
isn't it?
> Stop worrying about someone else issue where someone else never worry about it at all.
It is out issue, and human rights violations are EVERYONE's issue on the planet.
How US based corporations based in this country doing business in your country is my business too, so I don't get your point at all.
> Third, cultural and philosophy are entirely different from America in China. Personal short term interests have to oblige mass and long term interests. We can sacrifice personal rights if that can save others instead of cultural here to respect personal rights absolutely.
That fine, there are cultural differences, and very often they must be respected. But there's nothing to respect about a government totally trying to restrict this type of information and political movements. Just because that's the norm there doesn't mean we all have to agree, just the same as not all of us agree with what our government does. There is such a thing as fundamental human rights, no matter were you live.
- sigs are for wimps.
...you must be in trouble. just watch for the knife.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
China has a notorious past of spying upon Manufacturing, etc. that is moved within their borders then duplicating it with no regard to intellectual rights. I call it "economic warfare." It's nefarious yet effective. I'm sure they intend to do exactly the same thing by spying on IT companies to gain access to sensitive military aplication software. Gates realizes this trend and he wishes for other companies to go to China and learn it the hard way how they steal everything of value from your company. Meanwhile he is scoring points with the Chinese beauraucrats by delivering a pro-China message. So he comes out on top, until they turn on him in the end.
In a democracy on the other hand, the human right of freedom of speech only gets restricted if it collides with other human rights, e.g. the right of children to not be sexually exploited. In a democracy freedom of speech is never ever restricted when it comes to criticizing the government.
I can't grasp that anyone wouldn't see the difference.
"access to the outside world is preventing more censorship" - B. G.
Funny, I thought censorship was preventing access to the outside world.
I guess all of you have great experiences in managing countries. Even better, you're all probably managing 1.3 billion people on a daily basis.
;) wrecked us badly.
China leadership already told to Clinton and Bush to f*ck off, since they have no idea how it looks to manage and feed 1.3 billion people. And they said they'll go SLOW.
Which I can understand. I live in Eastern European country (population of 8 million), and "transition" to democracy and free market (globalism, in other words
I can't imagine what would happen to 1.3bn people if they tried to implement "transition" like we did.
I don't like what China does. Hell, I don't like what my own government does (but we don't have a choice, we're being "ordered" to do things by EU/USA - so much about "freedom and democracy"), but I seriosly think we have no right to tell Chinese people anything. Most of the people I've talked to (and am doing business with) are quite ok with the situation. Considering what they had 10 years ago, they seem to be very happy with how things are working out right now. Granted, there will be a lot of unhappy people, but there are lots of unhappy people in USA, EU, etc, so... it's all part of the game.
If Democracy is supposed to be such a good thing
Democracy isn't necessarily a good thing at all times, as it can actually inhibit freedom if it is not counter-balanced. "Tyranny of the majority", for example.
and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral
This is way too stringent. Firstly, what princpals are you refering to? There are many, not completely compatible, views on what a democracy really is.
Secondly, democracy doesn't necessarily product good or moral decisions. A democratic & free organization of humans can decide to do some horrendous things, such as kill other people they don't like.
then why does the same not hold true for corporations?
A managed organization (it's largely irrelevant if it's a corporation) is a pluralist entity within society; each has a certain role in society. Businesses, for example, exist to create markets and to increase the productive wealth of society through those markets (i.e. generate a profit).
Since democracy doesn't necessarily make "good" decisions (i.e. create products or services people need, or do so profitably), it doesn't make sense for the organization of a business to be democratic.
The problem with business, unfortunately, is that lots of bad theories and flawed laws about shareholder value and profit motive have led many businesspeople to forget that, basically, they're leaders in social institutions. And while they're not responsible for the "common good" per se, they at least must be responsible for their impacts, particularly on communities and the environment.
CEOs are just little Maoist dictators at heart. They share more with the reality of the Chinese rulers than they do with you, me or Thomas Paine.
The above statement has no basis in the reality of a modern large business, nor do modern large businesses have any reasonable resemblance to Mao Zedong's principles or tactics.
-Stu
Your analogy does not hold. Corporate capitalism is not at all like democracy in practice. Shareholders have long ago abdicated responsibility for corporate actions.
Firstly, control of the organization is seperate from the elected officials (board members), whereas in a democratically elected government, budgetary control is in the hands of the elected members.
Secondly, voting is, in the vast majority of cases, done by "proxy" to the management team, which selects the board members it wants. Shareholder activism is only present when major institutional shareholders decide they want a change in policy, or a raider comes in to raise the share price.
This is very far from responsible government.
Having said all of this, it's unlikely that democracy is an appropriate organizating structure for a business. Certainly, there is a role for employee ownership and for collective action, etc. But businesses exist to create markets and increase society's wealth, neither of which has anything to do with the level of freedom in how its policies are decided. Democracy doesn't automatically generate good decisions.
-Stu
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/search.html
Microsoft goes from wanting to f***ing bury you to defending you.
Google is exporting a product not our culture and our constitution! Are we not being imperialistic to take offense to a country's desire to plan their own destiny? Like a foreign country my rural community is trying to protect our environment as we integrate urban new comers and their ideas. By double teaming them, two on one, the newcomer is changed and impacted by our rural character. Their ideas somehow change during this interaction and better reflect the community. My community can more easily relate, embrace, and befriend ideas that are respectful to our old ways. In this way, we too, are moving up our learning curve. Head to head combat and ultimatums spoils any hope for a nurturing relationship to take hold.
I know that I am not totally out of line when I say that many people are offended by the content on the Internet and some isolated folks are truly not ready to take it all in. I have strong feelings that had we allowed other countries to decide what they wanted their communities to receive via satellite technology that we may not have had 911 nor a willingness of shocked and offended mother's to destine their children to become the suicide bombers of the future. Please help me. I want to understand why we have the right to adulterate other cultures? If it is a human rights agenda, Bill Gates is right, compromise is the democratic way. "Slowly but surely," allows economies and cultures to adjust without the chaos that just makes things worse. Kristie
P.S. This is my first post on the Internet!
Some of you make me laugh. You all always fall for the BS PR.
Google lied to get you to believe that. Evangelists like you are such suckers.
Never thought Google was much better than Yahoo. Both databases are filled with spam.
You see, this is exactly what people mean when they say, "money isnt everything."
I'm surprised at how many people are getting such a simple phrase wrong. But when they misquote it AND make an argument based on the exact phrasing... and then get modded up to 5? I had to say something. "Don't be evil" is rather different from "Do no evil", when you think about it.
Let's consider: directv offers - estimating here - maybe 50 channels that air commercials. this doesn't include the various affiliates of which you really can only 'subscribe" to one group at a time.
Average show is 23 minutes, hat's seven minutes of commercials or about 15 minutes of commercials an hour. Average commercial is 30 seconds, so that's thirty commercials per channel per hour. Let's do the engineering thing and go worst case is maybe twenty commercials per hour per channel.
Over 50 stations, that's 1000 commercials per hour.
Think about all the money being spent to deliver those 1000 commercials per hour...
No one is demanding I have electricity in my house. In some jurisdictions this is not the case - but in those jurisdictions who is it demanding you keep power connected? Isa it the electric company? No, it is the zoning commission; it is the elected representatives.
I can run a gas generator on pigshit from now until forever and the only money the oil companies see is what I spend filling the crankcase every six months. I can also power one from frenchy fry oil or sunflower seeds or whatever I care to grow.
If you are determined to live in the city you cannot blame others for your choice. Living in the city means you will have to pay for resources that are otherwise plentiful in less populated areas. Likewise, living in a less populated area I cannot just hop over to the library or the museum whenever the mood strikes because there simply aren't any. I'm also on shitty dialup whereas even the small towns around here offer some sort of broadband.
BTW, contemporary solar cells in proper focused collectors can run well over 25% efficiency. But solar power doesn't just mean electricity - a properly designed home can use the sun for heating and cooling and hot water supply with zero electrical requirements for those tasks. It doesn't cost more to build a home like that, but you're not going to find many just sitting around waiting to be occupied.
We all make our own choices in life. Blaming others for choices we have made and later regret only leads to more misery.
Censorship allways fails those who support it are ignoring the lessons of history. If people want to know something they will allways find a way they allways had.
I have no problem with companies doing business in China, or upholding Chinese law, however I think this particular venture is a catch-22. If Google, MSN, and Yahoo can censor content according to Chinese standards, they may very well be expected to do the same in the US, and possibly sued for not doing so. (Think piracy, pedophilia, libel, etc). They're demonstrating both the technical aptitude for censorship, and the legal liability for failure to censor, which just doesn't sound like a good business plan overall, whether they succeed and are mandated to censor material elsewhere, or fail and are held liable.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
What do you mean? Do you want all Chinese blind and deaf, and it is what you call `good'?
China is not something you ever imagined. The government is not satisfactory, but not `evil' as we would call. My brain is not full of propaganda, partly thanks to the Internet. If everyone follows your logic, then we Chinese might be really blind!
I can't make much sense out of your "reply", I know English is your second (3rd,4th?) language, but wow you need practice. It's my 2nd language too, so I have high tolerance for gibberish, but damn, I don't get what you are saying. Sorry.
- sigs are for wimps.