Slashdot Mirror
Google Targeted By Anti-Censorship Movement
wormnet.org writes "An article has been posted on The Observer reporting that Google has been targeted by the group "Students For A Free Tibet" because of the internet company's relationship with the Chinese government. The article states: "... more than 50,000 letters have been sent to Google bosses in recent days protesting at the company's decision to censor searches on its google.cn website in line with Beijing's wishes. Protesters have also staged public 'break-ups' with Google at demonstrations outside many of its offices around the world.""
they just think it's easier to harrass google then to take on the chineese government
"I don't know, Google...it's just not working out. I mean, you're cute and all, but that insider stock selling is just going too far. You play with lego bricks and then screw shareholders out of billions. Now these oddball positions. You're not warm anymore, goog, you're all steely-eyed and Evil(TM)(C)(R)(K). Sorry googie, you're out..."
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Is that like some sort of declaration of boycott?
Actually, yes. It was a boycott planned to begin on Valentine's Day, and continue until Google gave up it's evil censoring ways. A website was even set up to help with the occasion. No Luv 4 Google (It's not my spelling, it's theirs, sorry)
They're not just focusing on Google though, since Microsoft and Yahoo both filter their searches in China also. They've got a large list of alternative search engines you can use and other ways of protesting.
Don't blame Google, blame China.
Without the restrictions Google can not do business in China.
Intresting to note are the "small" diffrencens on the two Google sites google.com and google.cn.
Tiananmen with tanks:
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
Tiananmen with happy people:
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
Ones again, blame China.
I've noticed in a lot of these items that it's Google that is singled out for the headline treatment, whilst Microsoft, Yahoo et al only get small mentions in the text, usually with a desultory "Microsoft & Yahoo also filter searches" type single sentence... and usually buried well down in any article as to be practically invisible
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Will they also be sending letters to the US Government over the attempted suppression of the Iraqi prisoner of war abuse images?
Google is censoring as per the Chinese Gov. But so is MSN and Yahoo. The difference is that Google will tell the person that an item was censored, whereas MSN and Yahoo will not be doing that. As a user, I would hate the censoring. But I would hate much more NOT being informed exactly when I was being censored. This guys should either be going after all search engines or should push the others to be more like Google.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
From the FAQ:
Q: What about Yahoo! and Microsoft etc., they're already doing this?
A:We deplore Yahoo and Microsoft's actions as well but as the industry leader, Google's impact is enormous. Google's decision to create its product to the Chinese authorities' specifications sets a very dangerous precedent of bringing the most advanced technology to the most closed and repressive government under the guise of effecting change. More importantly, the launch of Google.cn is a reversal of Google's policy of non-cooperation with China's internet censorship program.
If this isn't a sign of bias, I don't know what is. I've also noticed that when you search for Microsoft, 8 out of 11 times they are comparing Microsoft to Google, and Microsoft's equally abysmal record is always glossed over and not gone into detail like they do with Google. This smells like media manipulation to me. Yahoo and Microsoft must be both loving this.
A lot of people talk about how google brings net services in, and that eventually that will do a lot more good than staying away would. That's not a dumb argument, or one that can be dismissed out of hand.
But I think that when people from outside of the country take a stand, and tell the truth about what's right and what's not, it makes a difference. There are people in China who are fighting, and when companies or foreign governments stand by what's right, those people know that they're not alone, and that they're not crazy, and what they're fighting for is real.
I take some comfort when the UN critizes US behavior in Guantanamo for that reason. I know the UN isn't going to be able to bring about a change in policy, but it's nice to know there's a world beyond talk radio and cable news coverage.
In google's defense, it is a lot of money. And I guess if they can believe their giant jetliner is good for the world, because they can fly people other rich people to africa to see what poverty is really like, then they can believe that what they're doing in china is good for the world too. I guess when you're that successful, everything you do is good for the world.
They'll probably be thoroughly filtered and censored for their reading pleasure.
With relevant but not too obtrusive text ads inserted at the top, sides, and bottom.
We really should be protesting censorship world wide. And not just in China.
Why blame Google for China's censorship? That is the most rediculously tactic I've seen. Google is an American company, and these students think it's Googles job to protest the Chinese government? Why don't these same students protest the Chinese government themselves?
I understand that censorship is bad, but this tactic actually makes Google look like the good guy when its being made into politics. If they don't like Googles censorship, they can use Yahoo, or Microsofts search engine, or even better they can use the Chinese governments search engine.
I know that my comment may sound a bit jaded and sarcastic, but... a laugh at others' expense.
But, well, lets look at this.
Can you find Iraqi prisoner abuse images in Google.
Google Image Search: iraqi prisoner
Yes
Is this an article about Google complying with the Great Firewall of China
Yes
Did Google comply with China?
Yes
Did Google censor the Iraqi prisoner abuse images
No
Did anybody (outside of the government) censor them?
No
That doesn't even touch on the fact that those images, originally would have been classified and technically should have been seen by censors long before they ever got out. Now, why doesn't it touch on that? Because it's completely nongermane.
I understand that you have a soapbox to stand on (and hey, go for it), but this is a story about a student organization that doesn't care about the issue you've brought up, and a company that didn't censor the images that you brought up.
No, I imagine they won't be sending a letter to the US government. There is a big difference between being pissed off that the images got out and saying some nasty words, yet having the imagines remain...
http://images.google.com/images?q=Iraqi+prisoner+
Or taking images like this...
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
...and using the force of law to pull a China.
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
Do you understand the difference a little better now?
Why is Google the bad guy again? As I understand it:
1) Google's results are being censored by the government, typically by simply not allowing their traffic through, making it appear to be a technical malfunction.
2) There's no way for Google to avoid the censorship.
3) Google comes up with a way to disclose the censorship.
4) Alternatively, Google could walk, leaving Chinese search engines to filter results without any disclosure.
So if Google made the wrong decision, which one was better? Walking and leaving the Chinese with no awareness of the situation? Ignoring the situation and sticking with the status quo? Filtering results without disclosure? How would these steps help Tibet?
This is like boycotting Zhang Yimou's films because they attack the Chinese government through metaphor, rather than railing against it overtly and getting him imprisoned or killed.
The Chinese government is the problem, attacking Google is a huge waste of resources; how about a letter writing campaign to Beijing?
Why is it that people only care about morality on the Google China issue? We have this policy of corporations only acting out of profits, ok fine, EXCEPT in China?
Why is China the exception to the rule? Morality does not matter unless it's China? Human rights do not matter unless its China? It's as if we spend more time worrying about the human rights of the Chinese than our own. Please explain to me why the human rights issue in China is so important to us?
...that Google is using subterfuge? Doesn't anyone remember what happened when Google got hit with a DMCA by the Church of Scientology? Remember the outcry over Google removing certain search results? Do you also remember the ultimate solution? Google posted a copy of the actual DMCA request...which happened to contain the exact offending URLs...oh and just because of the way parser works, those URLs were hotlinks. Add to that the press involved and I think that the reality is at the end of the day, more people read that content than had ever thought to google it before.
Who here doesn't understand that this kind of behavior is way to both "be legal" and "don't be evil"? That a company that has a history of doing these kinds of end-runs around crummy laws is just as likely to do it in the future? Consider this:
Google.cn censors certain pages based on, most likely, a know list of offending sites and perhaps certain keywords. What happens on Google.cn if someone googles for freed0m? or fr33dom? or c1v1l rights or anything else? You can bet that until that variation pops up on the government radar, there will be a lot of traffic on those pages from Chinese users. It's not beyond the realm of possibility for Google's engine to even play some kind of silent "did you mean freedom?" game and show the best results regardless of misspelling.
One thing is for sure, I wouldn't put it past them. What incentive do Chinese search engines like Baidu have to do the right thing? First of all, to their culture, it's not even the right thing. It's quite possible that the management of Chinese search engines look upon it as their patriotic duty to censor, and zealously go beyond what is even required. Google is an American company...with a new Chinese arm. But the heart and the technology are still American and it is unlikely that Google could ever be as close to the government as other homegrown engines. Quite frankly, I'm shocked the Chinese government would even allow Google in to China. What do they have to gain? It's not like Google is bringing millions of manufacturing dollars. At best, a couple floors of technicians?
You can't stop information, and you can be pretty sure that Google knows that. That's why they are in the business of providing information. Sooner or later, the bar and the slippery slope will begin and either the Chinese government will realize they've been hoodwinked and kick Google out...or move to an entirely whitelist-based Internet...or people will master the tricks and the knowledge will spread as quickly as the latest viral video.
-JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
This is not a scaleable moral argument. You yourself, as a matter of practical necessity, do absolutely nothing about *most* of the moral issues you are aware of (slavery in Sudan, anyone?). That doesn't make you guilty of those things. In most aspects of life we have to choose our battles.
You need to say why Google should have chosen this issue as their line in the sand. The argument has been put forward that it is better for them to do what they can within the law, such as it is, in China, rather than leave the Chinese audience to Chinese search engines which by being local can fall much more squarely under Party control. Even a partial Google is better than none at all, and still moves the country toward freedom of information (albiet more slowly).
Or that's what they argue, anyway. Why not deal with the argument, rather than handing out moral-high-horse generalisations whose end effect might well be worse for those who have much more to lose? This kind of action / inaction / pseudo-action can also constitute an abdication of responsibility.