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."
Everyone seems to be a bit confused about this. Google (and I assume MSN and Yahoo!) are only censoring google.cn results. Google.com is unfiltered, assuming you can get to it from China, but Google has no part in filtering that out. The google.cn servers are IN CHINA. So Google has two choices, filter, or have their servers promptly shutdown. This is about improving service to China, and to do that, they have to censor google.cn. There is no choice here, if there is going to be a local, accessible google, then it must be filtered. If Chinese users can get to google.com, then they can see the unfiltered results. Google even tells them on google.cn that some results are filtered. They can't do more than that.
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
Because people are free to be associated with corporations or to not be associated. In the U.S., I can start an organization in which I am dictator, king, deity, etc. But no one has to be in it, and generally the greatest consequence of disobeying me will be removal from my organization. Corporations don't have to be democratic because being an employee or customer of one is optional.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
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
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?).
Sigs cause cancer.
http://www.google.com/intl/zh-CN/
chown -R us ~you/base
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.
Think about it. Your comment may have been intended as humorous, but the opposite side is more likely true. Bill Gates, whether he recognizes that he's evil or not, surely knows that when Google says "Do No Evil," they are contrasting themselves from him.
In one fell swoop, Bill Gates has now placed Google into the same group he is in. From his perspective, if he's evil, so be it... now he's in good company. Bill Gates may have just precipitated the destruction of it's arch nemesis, Google.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
I was in China in October, and indeed, when going to google.com, the results would default to Chinese language results.
mahlen