Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Admits Compromising Principles in China

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the sorry-about-that dept.

muellerr1 writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that it had adopted 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with' in their Chinese activities. Though it doesn't yet sound like they're admitting to actually doing evil, it does appear that they are thinking about pulling out of China rather than compromise their 'do no evil' motto."

89 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. It all makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Google is not evil and China is, then it's just logical that they'd pull out. We wouldn't want a rift in the space-time continuum now, would we?

    1. Re:It all makes sense by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uh? they weren't denying censoring searches, it was written in plain text (chinese though) on the frigging result pages.

      What they were denying was that it was evil, or that "bringing limited informations" was a worse evil than "not bringing any information at all". And I, for one, agreed with google on that one: most chinese don't care that their search results are censored, as long as Google only censors it's chinese-based services and clearly states that the results are filtered it can only bring a better content and a better awareness to the chinese.

      If tomorrow my own country decided to start filtering information, I'd be hella glad if Google kept on feeding me with (filtered) search result if it told me that the results were filtered.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:It all makes sense by aleksiel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      imho, it will turn out to be a good thing in the end. google can't censor all of its content. it, to me, is better for the people of china to have access to SOME information through google getting their foot in the door instead of the people of china having access to NO information because google decided to let the door close. perhaps it is motivated by money, perhaps it isn't. either way, in the long run, it might be better.

    3. Re:It all makes sense by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They were censoring searches while the wording on their site clearly said they were not.

      Now did that wording show up on the chinese version of google after results started being censored?

    4. Re:It all makes sense by SnapShot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I try not to get all of my rules of living from science fiction books, but I think _The Diamond Age_ (Stephenson) made a good point when it took the stand that hipocrisy is not the worst of all sins. The point was that taking a stand and failing to live up to it is better than not taking a stand at all.

      Obviously, this requires constant examination. Someone who continues to expouse a principal yet do something else (c.f. Republican congress and fiscal responsibility) needs to be called out on their actions, but I'm willing to give Google a little bit of leeway... this time.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    5. Re:It all makes sense by alucinor · · Score: 5, Funny

      The U.S. is pretty evil too. I hope they pull out of there.

      --
      random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
    6. Re:It all makes sense by rm69990 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, I don't notice a date anywhere on your linked page, so how can we determine that Google had this on their site while censoring searches? In-fact, I went to that webpage, and this is what it currently says:

      Does Google censor search results?

      It is Google's policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.

      http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer =17795&topic=368

      Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.

    7. Re:It all makes sense by plover · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's not how I read it. As far as I could tell, they were seriously considering whether or not censoring the search results per China's request was "more evil" than denying Chinese citizens the ability to search at all.

      My understanding of their moral 'compromise' was that they would provide the censored search, but to put the disclaimer on the bottom of each page stating (not in so many words): "your government forced us to censor the search results they don't want you talking about." The rationalization was the continued presense of the warning would make the censorship feel like a burr under the saddle. A frequent little reminder that those in power are truly oppressing them.

      Of course, as with any compromise, external people saw the decision in whichever light reflected their own viewpoint. Most people who were paying attention saw it as a horrible move supporting a violently oppresive regime. Others, perhaps those who are tolerant of more limited forms of censorship (such as the suppresion of nazi imagery or propaganda in Germany) saw it as an ethical compromise by Google. Businesspeople who wanted to advertise in the rapidly expanding Chinese markets saw it as a wise move, enabling them to pitch their wares more effectively. Finally, the vast majority of people outside of China don't much care what happens inside China -- they're too busy worrying about their own problems (or the ones their own government invents to terrify them into submission.)

      Sure, there are dollars (or yuan) to consider, too. They have to answer to stockholders, after all. But "don't be evil" is a big part of who they are, and it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for things like "mostly don't be evil."

      --
      John
  2. Good for Brin! by smug_lisp_weenie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The China censorship issue was a very difficult decision and, no matter how you look at it, they chose the less moral option... If they truly follow up and reverse their policy on China I will have to cease my usual cynicism and admit that Google may truly be a _moral_ company!

    Go Brin! Go Google!

    1. Re:Good for Brin! by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He made these comments many many months after people started talking about this, and it's probable he only did it now because the criticism was getting to a point where it was beginning to affect their other business. If they really felt it was so wrong for them to do it, they either would have pulled the plug much earlier or not gone in to China under those conditions in the first place.

      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones. Sure, they get to act like they're doing it so they won't be "evil," but they'll really be doing it because they're afraid the bad publicity the China issue has been generating and will continue to generate will drag down their numbers in other areas.

    2. Re:Good for Brin! by phillywize · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whatever the equities of Google's deal-with-the-devil agreement with the Chinese government, it speaks well of Google that they're even copping to the problem with knuckling under to censorship. Things obviously aren't as bad as they could be; things would be much worse if Brin were maintaining that what they did in China was the greatest thing ever. A company willing to question its politically controversial decisions publicly is probably not irretrievably evil. Whether it's moral is another question.

    3. Re:Good for Brin! by DeusExMalex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet even if they pull out of China for purly business reasons they wouldn't be doing evil. (Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil.) "Don't be evil" != "Be good"

    4. Re:Good for Brin! by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things obviously aren't as bad as they could be; things would be much worse if Brin were maintaining that what they did in China was the greatest thing ever. A company willing to question its politically controversial decisions publicly is probably not irretrievably evil. Whether it's moral is another question.

      However, as long as there are companies who don't care (Microsoft, Yahoo etc.) it really doesn't matter all that much. In general morality is punished by the market. That's why Capitalism is an inherently amoral system. All it takes is one company to take a sleazy path and then that's the way they all go along with or go out of business. That's all assuming, of course, that there isn't some huge movement on the part of the American people leading to restrictive legislation.

    5. Re:Good for Brin! by EMeta · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, no. Pulling out of a country who will have more internet users than America and Europe combined in the next 10-15 years is not good for any internet business. There is no amount of publicity enhancement that could cover this change, especially since there are no other large internet companies who are competing with Google for the least evil award.

      Taking a moral path is not about always being right. It is about always striving to be right & taking the care to reevaluate situations based on the current and future situations. I'm just glad there are still companies who know the M word.

    6. Re:Good for Brin! by gid13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he's doing it for business reasons, then you probably have a very high opinion of capitalism. However, if it's indeed business reasons, one would have to wonder why Microsoft, Yahoo, et al have not been pulling out too.

    7. Re:Good for Brin! by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones.

      And it's up to all of us to make sure that good morals = good business.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:Good for Brin! by smallpaul · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones. Sure, they get to act like they're doing it so they won't be "evil," but they'll really be doing it because they're afraid the bad publicity the China issue has been generating and will continue to generate will drag down their numbers in other areas.

      There really is no externally observable difference between morality and publicity in this case. Their motto is "don't be evil." So they've set up their business so that being evil will generate a disproportionate amount of bad publicity. They've organized everything so that morality and publicity are inextricable: more so than in ordinary businesses. That in itself is admirable. But in the end, why does it matter what their internal motivations are? Why do you care? If we reward companies that do good and punish those that do bad, more will do good. If we punish those that do good with cynicism then there is no (business) reason for them to do good.

    9. Re:Good for Brin! by kponto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil,

      Duh... we're liberals.

      --
      This too, will end.
    10. Re:Good for Brin! by DeusExMalex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree it's possible to do good and run a successful business but as I stated before, making a smart PR move doesn't make them evil. In their line of work censoring information isn't a terribly good idea, but you have to work within the laws of the country you're working in.

      Almost everything is shades of grey when it comes to working with China. Google could chose not to work with China because of their censorship and then no one wins. Google could say "Nuts to you, China! We're coming in and not censoring anything! Viva la revolucion!" and quickly be booted out of China - again, no one wins. Or Google could agree to a contract they might not be completely comfortable with (but really - who actually is comfortable doing business with China anymore?) and hopefully get some information to the masses. Why is it evil if they happen to be making a buck at the same time?

      I don't understand when it became evil to be profitable.

    11. Re:Good for Brin! by Otter · · Score: 2, Interesting
      However, if it's indeed business reasons, one would have to wonder why Microsoft, Yahoo, et al have not been pulling out too.

      Google's image (and stock valuation) are based heavily around the company's halo. They're a lot more sensitive to criticism of their integrity than Yahoo is, let alone Microsoft.

      That said, I'll still give them credit for doing the right thing, should they actually do it. I do wonder if all the hyper-fanboys who were talking about how Google is saving China, so providing censored search results is Not Evil and bowing to pressure to not do so would be Evil, are going to criticize them should they leave.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    12. Re:Good for Brin! by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The less moral? They explicitely state that search results were filtered out at the very top of each page that should've hold censored results for god's sake. And for non-filtered results they bring the google quality of searches and size of index to China, which is in my book a very good thing indeed.

      What's left to the chinese once Google pulls out? Baidu, the chinese-gov-shoes-licker, Yahoo who helps imprison bloggers and MSN whose staff takes down blogs without even a warning mail? Woohoo, i'm sure that google pulling out would help the chinese people a lot... not...

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    13. Re:Good for Brin! by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is nothing moral about compromising your promises to sell advertising to the largest internet userbase in the world. Being the "most moral" company profiting off of the people in a suppresive regime doesn't make you any better. That stance is a cop-out.

      Search is not a product, the searchers are. Google decided access to that amount of searchers was worth the possible backlash. The argument that Google is at least doing some good in China is ridiculous, it was for money.

      What good are they doing? Great search results (subjective and censored) can't create food. They don't create democracies. They can't fight along side you in a revolt.

      Let's disarm another favorite. Google, as a public business, has a duty to it's shareholders to conduct themselves in the manner that they vote upon in their shareholder meetings. OK - the people who hold a majority of voting rights in Google are........Larry, Sergey, and Eric. So I guess they really have to answer to themselves when it comes to these things. If Larry, Sergey, and Eric really didn't want to enter China - they wouldn't have. They wanted to and they did.

      For the good of the people my ass. I ask again. What good can search results that are censored bring to an oppressed people?

    14. Re:Good for Brin! by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, moral absolutism. How simplistic. Almost as simplistic as complete moral relativism. Is killing someone always wrong? I guess you don't believe in self defense. Killing is always wrong, right? No qualifying things, no putting them in context, wrong is wrong. Doesn't matter that some thug is trying to stick a knife in you, killing is wrong.

      Censorship is wrong. It doesn't matter that censorship is going to happen in China whether you do it or someone else does it. And it makes no difference that you put a notice on every page saying that something has been censored, whereas other companies won't. You are still an evil censor and you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Let me introduce the concept of harm reduction. In a complex world, one can not predict all outcomes and potential harm inherent in an action, but one can try to reduce the amount of harm done. Perhaps, by refusing to participate in censorship, Google would make things worse for the Chinese than if they do participate and call attention to the fact that they are censoring things.

      It must be nice living in your black and white world, reducing all potential decisions down to some absolute right and wrong. Let me ask, where does this absolute scale of right and wrong come from? Did you just make it up? Did someone tell you what it is? Did God tell you? How do you know for sure you have the right list?

      People like you scare me. How much unnecessary suffering in this world do you suppose was created by people who knew, absolutely, that they were doing the right thing?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  3. Why now? by Billosaur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Speaking in Washington, Sergey Brin, Google's billionaire co-founder, said the company, which operates under the motto "do no evil", had adopted "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with".

    In a hint that Google could adjust its stance in China in the future, he added: "Perhaps now [emphasis mine] the principled approach makes more sense."

    So what took you so long Sergey? Why now? Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start? Talk about coming to the party late!

    Just how much back-pedalling Google does now should be interesting, as this is no doubt going to cause revenue problems in the long run and a bit of a publicity flap in the short run, though if Google decides to finally stand on its principles and other companies like Microsoft and Yahoo don't follow along, it should regain a lot of standing in many people's eyes. Well, except for the Chinese government's anyway...

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Why now? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start?

      Given what little we've heard about the internal debates at Google, they were crystal clear that it was a bad idea but decided the alternatives were even worse:
      Problem. Chinese people lack access to non-governmental information
      Answer. Do something that results in their government shutting down Google altogether.

      Should you choose your actions based on their effects or on your principles? Ethicists could argue either side of that until you ran out of the room in boredom. Google chose, or tried to choose, the greatest good for the greatest number. We can all guess what rms would have done in their place.

    2. Re:Why now? by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you actually had any morals, you would have realized that in the first place.

      You mean you've never done anything wrong, that you knew was wrong at the time, and then later realized that you just can't live with it and have to fix it?

      I'm not saying that's what's going on here, I have no idea whether or not Google is actually going to change it's approach to China, and I have no idea what the real motivations will be if they do, but I think it's important to remember that decisions are made by people, and even very moral people make mistakes. The way you can tell that they're very moral people is that they can't just leave it at that, they fix their mistakes if at all possible. It takes a great deal of moral courage to admit that you made a mistake and did a morally reprehensible thing, but admitting to it is a prerequisite to correcting it.

      In this particular situation, I can see how the mistake could be made, pretty easily. The moral question isn't as clear cut as many here seem to think. Which will really help the Chinese people more, a censored search service or no search service? I also think Google made the wrong decision, but I can see how easy it would be to justify the one they made, particularly given the high incentive to do business in China.

      If Google ends their censorship in China, it may well be for purely business reasons, and the moral issues may just be a smokescreen, but to presume that *must* be the case is excessively cynical. Don't attribute to malice (or evil) what can be adequately explained by incompetence (or error).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. It's called being human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Even the slashdot editors have compromised too.

    From their FAQ: I thought everyone on Slashdot hated the RIAA, the MPAA, and Microsoft. Why do you keep hyping CDs, movies, and Windows games?

    Big corporations are what they are. They sell us cool stuff with one hand and tighten the screws on our freedoms with the other. We hate them every morning and love them every afternoon, and vice versa. This is part of living in the modern world: you take your yin with your yang and try to figure out how to do what's right the best you can. If you think it has to be all one way or the other, that's cool, share your opinions, but don't expect everyone else to think the same.

    Nobody is perfect, not even Google.

  5. will others follow suit? by binarstu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I certainly hope that other companies, particularly Yahoo, which has been implicated in providing information to Chinese authorities leading to the arrest of political dissidents, will feel pressured by Google's recent announcement to be more candid about their own policies regarding operations in China. If our big Internet players were to stand up for what is right, it'd be a powerful statement for human rights.

  6. Hmmm by GmAz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Following a countries laws is evil? To hell with paying taxes then!!!

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
  7. they lose my trust by xlyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand that chinese market is tempting, but any company that I shall trust with so many information on me shall not be ready to compromise with any govern / administraion / authority. They'll gain China, but they'll loose me.

  8. Yeah, right. by Kid+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's easy to admit you did something bad after the first few large paychecks for compromising your beliefs. I'm sure that pile of cash will soothe their guilt over the decision.

  9. Shareholders? by chrismcdirty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How will the shareholders feel if they pull out of China? Would that be acting in the shareholders' best interests? I'm not sure if ignoring a possible 1.3 billion people would be the best for them in the long run.

    --
    It's like sex, except I'm having it!
    1. Re:Shareholders? by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would that be acting in the shareholders' best interests?

      Unbelievably, the choice between "Do Evil" and "Do no Evil" is irrelevant as Google is obliged by law to follow the shareholders interests above everything else.

      Sad, sad, sad state of affairs, where a company is required by law to do what many consider to be immoral.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Shareholders? by 14CharUsername · · Score: 2, Informative

      We really need a Godwin's law for people who always bring up that a company is required by law to maximise profits or whatever.

      If a company has policies that involve being moral, and the shareholders know this, then they can't sue them for following their own policies. As long as Google is open about their policies they won't get sued. If shareholders don't like their policies they can sell their shares.

      Now if Google had a secret strategy that was lowering their revenues, then the shareholders can sue. But as long as they are open about stuff, they can do whatever they want.

    3. Re:Shareholders? by at_slashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The company principle is "do no evil" Shareholders by buying into Google stock subscribe to that principle, they can't hold Google responsible for following their declared principle.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    4. Re:Shareholders? by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law is also very flexible about allowing a company to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends but there are people who determine their investments beyond stock earning power.

    5. Re:Shareholders? by anaesthetica · · Score: 3, Informative
      Unbelievably, the choice between "Do Evil" and "Do no Evil" is irrelevant as Google is obliged by law to follow the shareholders interests above everything else.

      Perhaps, but remember that Brin and Page issued an "Owner's Manual" for their stock when it was issued, and that it was issued in two different classes. Class A stock has much lower voting representation than Class B stock (a ratio of 1:10 voting weight). Class B stockholders are the ones with real power to steer Google, and Google's Class B stock is tightly held. Brin and Page together hold 33% of the Class B stock, which is enough to ensure that they can direct the company.

      Co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page own 33% of Google's Class B stock and have developed a voting structure that would let them keep the control of their creation. According to CNN Money, Brin owns 38.5 million Class B stocks while Page owns 38.6 million. The voting system that the two have put in place allows holders of B-level stock to have 10 votes for each share. Owners of Google's Class A stock, which is what Google will be offering to the public, will have only one vote per stock. CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, owns 14.8 million Class B shares. Venture capital firms Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital each hold 23.9 million Class B shares. After that, the next largest Class B stock holder "is investor K. Ram Shriram, Amazon.com's former vice president of business development, with 5.3 million shares, or 2.3 percent."
      --
      The Rise and Fall of Online Community
    6. Re:Shareholders? by bigbadbuccidaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google could also make a lot of money selling illegal drugs. So it would be in the shareholders interests for them to start doing so. Therefore, they are required by law to do it.

    7. Re:Shareholders? by SonOfGates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >The law is also very flexible about allowing a company
      >to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number
      >of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends
      >but there are people who determine their investments beyond
      >stock earning power.

      Indeed. But on a simpler level, Evil is just bad...and companies are wise to steer clear of it altogether. :)

      Sans the ability to travel to the future (and/or find a reasonably accurate *and* affordable psychic) the officers, directors, et al, of a public firm are not obligated to "act in such manner as to secure the best possible outcome" -- such a demand necessitates that said officers/directors be capable of: (1) knowing or determining in advance every possible result (and side-effect) that would inevitably stem from a decision (or series of decisions); and (2) quantifying in some meaningful way all the "positive" and "negative" effects entailed by each disparate result, so that some form of "Ethical Calculus" could be performed and conclusively (objectively) tell us which of the N solutions was "in the best interest of the Shareholders."

      I think it's safe to say that with N>1, above, we move into nonlinear space rather quickly. :)

      Basically, it comes down to this:

      1. As an officer or director of a firm, you have a fiduciary duty to represent the Shareholders' best interests -- you do this by avoiding conflicts of interest, practicing all appropriate due dilligence (eg, when researching/considering a significant decision), and then finally, acting or voting in a manner that you believe (in good faith) will best benefit the Shareholders you represent.

      2. This is NOT the same thing as what some of the previous posts have said, eg, "Google execs must always act on (capture) any and all immediate/obvious potential revenue streams, blindly exploit every opportunity for profit, etc, because they have a responsibity to enhance Shareholder ROI, every second of every day, no matter what the cost."

      Since the Nazi analogy has already been used (lol), I'll try to go with a more creative one: At some point, Exxon execs had to decide whether to purchase Nice Safe Expensive Ships or Cheap-Ass Ships of Questionable Quality. Hindsight is 20/20, but put yourself in the shoes of the executives who had to decide between purchasing and maintaining the NSESs and the CASQQs.

      Purchasing the NSESs would cut deep into Exxon's profit margin, which was Bad For Shareholders. So it's an automatic "no," right? Perhaps, but more likely, the end result was more a function of a risk-weighted cost/benefit analysis. Ie, "What's the worst case scenario? How likely is such an outcome? And if something catastrophic did happen, how much would it cost to 'fix' (cleanup, repair the ships, PR, etc) said catastrophe?"

      Every decision involves potential risks, losses, and gains -- and many of these are identified in advance, which is great. But it's the potential risks/losses you *don't* forsee that nail you -- eg, the real cost of the cleanup effort, the loss of disgusted Exxon customers who *never* came back after the incident, opening the door for BP's to later capitalize with their "green" quasi-envioronmentally "at least we're better than Exxon" marketing campaigns, etc.

      Exxon saw the environment as a tool, not an ally (or something worth protecting) -- if the Valdez had never struck that Iceberg, then maybe (!) you could arguablly claim that the decision to increase shareholder wealth (vs "waste it" on environmental protections that nobody would ever see or appreciate, and would probably never contribute to the bottom line, as far as they knew) was totally right ...

      In fact, this probably *is* the correct course of action ... if we're to believe the myopic view of "Company as Monster" where "COMPANY MUST GROW NOW! Smas

  10. I disagree by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know that if you were running Google, you wouldn't have turned your back to China. Google did no evil here.

    It sounds like you're saying that since greed is universal, it's acceptable to help an oppressive regime in the name of profit.

    I know I'm going from zero to Godwin in only ten seconds, but the Nazis were just doing their jobs, too. Obviously there is a huge difference between filtering search results and gassing people and putting them in mass graves, but the logic doesn't improve any as the severity decreases.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I disagree by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the word 'evil' has become quite watered down lately. Anything not perfect and good is not "evil."

      Lets look at this a bit more rationally. Google provides a search service - arguably the best in the world - for the internet. I would call this 'good' and I think many would agree. China, however, has laws which make it illegal for Google to display results to certain searches properly. They "ask " Google to comply.

      Google now has effectively two options. Comply and censor some searches, or don't comply and not be allowed use by anybody in China.

      Compliance: Google provides a 'slightly broken' search system to the residents of China. They do, however, note on their site that the results may have been limited due to state laws.
      Non-Compliance: Google would not be usable at all in China.

      I would say that Google is doing 'less good' than they would if results were not censored. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that their actions themselves are 'evil.' The actions of the state of China *are*, however, evil. But doing 'less good' when a state is forcing your hand is *hardly* evil.

      Now if google employees were told to 'gas' members of the population, we're talking something very different. 'Gassing' people is evil, not 'less good'.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  11. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Googlasia went public today sporting a motto "Do As Little Evil As Possible". Stocks soared from the opening price.

    It will be interesting to see how this holds against their primary competitor, Microsoft which has embraced the Chinese market. They do not stand to lose their image or their corporate motto of "Screw Everyone."

  12. New Motto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do no Evil... Do compromises.

  13. What about US censorship? by Tojo-Mojo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google complies with the DMCA, which requires it censor certain search results (for example, "kazaalite" http://www.google.com/search?q=kazaalite will display a notice at the bottom indicating search results were removed).

    Admittedly, it doesn't go as far as China's censorship, but this is a slippery slope. Why is censorship there "evil", but censorship here is not? Google is complying with the law. Yes, I think it's a bad law. But since when is obeying the law evil? Why is it up to Google to crusade against government policy? Are they some kind of political super-hero?

    1. Re:What about US censorship? by ClamIAm · · Score: 2

      The difference is that the DMCA does not prevent you from expressing an opinion. If I write something critical of a person, an organization, or the government, the DMCA cannot legally be used to silence me. It can definitely be used to harass people (calling up my web host and claiming I have infringing material), but provided I have not actually violated copyright, nothing can be done.

      Contrast this with China, where you can get thrown in jail for having a non-compliant opinion.

    2. Re:What about US censorship? by fbjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because following the law isn't the same as doing the Right Thing (tm), especially as the laws get more oppressive or totalitarian. Unless of course oppression or totalitarianism happen to be the Right Thing, which I don't presume.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:What about US censorship? by Moofie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But since when is obeying the law evil?"

      If an when obeying a law (which may or may not be evil) causes you to do evil, you have done evil. The law is not a "get out of evil free" card.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  14. Google's no-win situation around here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Google stay in China, people call them evil hypocrits, pandering to a brutal government. If Google leaves, people call them stubborn information whores. Either way, the people of China are the ones that lose. Between the two, I think that the "some censored iformation is better than no information". While they can't learn about tank boy, perhaps they can learn other useful information (encryption, bomb making, etc.)

    As much as we like to make fun of America, at least we don't have to worry about [severe] state sanctioned censorship [yet].

  15. Google employees in china by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google has employees in China. I can imagine how the treatment of these employees might be used to the advantage of the Chinese government if Google is weighing whether to pull out. It would be truly dirty for the government to threaten the welfare of former google employees in discussions with the management, and it would lead to quite an international conundrum. At the same time, it is possible. China isn't exactly known for protecting human rights. Thoughts?

  16. All eyes are on Google by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After making such statements, they have no choice but to pull out now.

    Many companies are starting to follow Google's lead in many ways and on many things. If they say they are considering pulling out and then fail to do it, the disappointment in Google will be enormous. If Google lived and prospered everywhere EXCEPT China, that could only serve to make Google look good and China look bad.

      I feel pretty much the same about IP and DRM issues in the world where if the world refuses and legislates against IP and DRM leaving only the US with such restrictive laws, it will really make the US look bad and evil.

  17. Google by Blue6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is a publicly traded company will see how big their balls are when the stock holders get involved.

    --
    EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
    1. Re:Google by statemachine · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the two majority shareholders, Sergey and Larry?

    2. Re:Google by statemachine · · Score: 2, Informative

      You might be looking only at Class A shares. There's also a Class B.

      Anaesthetica posted earlier describing the stock situation at Google.

      Sergey and Larry did not relinquish control when they floated Google stock.

  18. Pulling out ??!? WOW ! by unity100 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This will be a first in this scale.

    It might be so that we might need to ask vatican to bestow sainthood on google at this rate.

    I have to admit im impressed.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:Pulling out ??!? WOW ! by RyanXP · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, i'm shocked about this whole pulling out business. I mean we all know China isn't on the pill, but I would've thought that a company as responsible as Google would at least wear a condom.

  19. Re:Google did no evil by Churla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, there is this third option.

    C) Don't bow to the Chinese government, they will not allow the site. They are the ones denying the Chinese people access to Google, not Google. Which means Google is doing no evil, but the Chinese government is.

    You can't sugarcoat "Agree to censor" enough to make it not evil, sorry.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  20. Amazing. by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've never in my life seen a corporate head admit wrongdoing so quickly without being forced to by a court. This is simply amazing.

    --
    San Francisco Photographers
  21. No, it was evil. by babbling · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Google entered China, they agreed to censor their search engine. Perhaps that could be an acceptable thing to do if they were asked to censor child pornography sites, but it really does depend on what they are being asked to censor.

    The Chinese government was asking them to cover up a government massacre of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people. To do such a thing is extremely disrespectful to those that were killed in this massacre.

    Google claim that they want to give people the information they're looking for, but in China, they're withholding the truth about what happened on June 4, 1989. Hundreds of innocent people murdered. You can't assist in the cover-up of something like that and claim that your integrity hasn't been compromised.

    1. Re:No, it was evil. by ID000001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a Chinese. I actually have relative live in china at that time who were heavily effected by the Massacre, I remember staying up 3 days straight watching the new hoping the sitution would improve. It did not, phone call were recieved that leave our family sob for months.

      And you know what? Today, I ask myself which one I prefer. If I'm still in China, would I rather shows my child a website where the seach of that event simply returns no result, or would I want some prove that government still leave much work to be done, by pointing at the note in a google search page that shows me they are forced to censor something.

      Which way to better let my child about the importances of freedom and the price we paid just to get make progress.

      I fails to find any alternative to shows easily show prove, and easily be aware of what we are being hidden from.

      I choose google.

  22. Interesting... by Attis_The_Bunneh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's interesting that Google's execs had made this decision, but I think it may harm them in the long run because essentially China's market is going to grow without them. Opportunities lost and means to affect progress on a country that nearly imploded on itself in the 1950s and 1960s that probably would benefit the most. The more I look at our own country, the USA, the more I see that Google ought to leave it by comparison. I admit, The PRC as a governmental entity is a digusting little thing, but the US isn't really too different by comparison. The US has the PATRIOT act, The FCC, and federal statutes against porno, encryption, etc... So, is this really just a Coke/Pepsi challange of ethics? I think so for a one reason; both countries, in fact all the countries Google operates in, has devils for governments. Whether it's civil liberty violations or compromised property rights [one could argue property rights are civil rights of a kind...], most countries do evil, and Google still does work in them. I'm not asking for Google's exec to implode into some Socratic Apologie, but I do think Google's execs ought to review the premises they set their motto upon.

    Do No Evil...How do they define it? To what purpose does one not wish to do evil? Is it to appease God or the public sensibility of evil? Do they, the Google execs, really know what evil is? I think it can be simply answered, but I know for one that I cannot answer it, but I hope they reconsider their motto's premises as they reconsidered their dealings in China...

    -- Bridget

  23. Google didn't do evil... They just didn't do good by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As far as I can tell Google continued its "Do no evil" policy in China. They didn't take anything away from Chinese users- they merely offered a new Chinese service that openly filters results. How many Chinese search engines mention that they filter results? When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? Google isn't hurting the Chinese- (Unlike Yahoo!, which gives the Chinese government personal data) it just can't help them much.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  24. Why is it Google's job to reform China? by jjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why there's anger at Google for obeying Chinese laws. Do I agree with those laws? Hell no. But business is business. Google doesn't make money from fostering democracy in foreign lands. They make money from selling ads. China is potentially a very large market, and so Google is doing what it has to as a profit-oriented venture.

    If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.

    And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.

    The reaction I've seen on this site on others to Google's decision is way out of line to what was done.

    I have no doubt that China will need to liberalize their government. If they want to be an effective technological power, they will need smart people and that means increasingly free access to information.

    1. Re:Why is it Google's job to reform China? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.

      And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.

      Just doing business. Only following orders. Caught up with the mob. It's only the Communists. Too young to know better. To old to think straight. How many other excuses are there?

      Bottom Line. Google are in bed with those dictators. Sure, maybe not every night of the week, but most nights. They're making money by colluding with a totalitarian state. No amount of excuses, handwringing, poignant apologies or clever excuses is going to change this fact.

      If Google could not make money in China, they would never have sacraficed their oh so precious principles. But when faced with the mountains of riches on offer to them by simply caving into demands contrary to their stated values, they caved. Oh how they caved. They sold the good ship "Don't be evil" up the river and set sail for the high seas of profit, to return holds bursting with yuan and Party contacts. They caved, caved hard.

      You want to keep making excuses for them, fine. While you're at it, make some excuses for arms dealers that sell to "choppn' off heads n' shit" third world dictators. Make some more for companies that forced bonded labourers and their children to toil for the sake of business. And don't forget to make some for yourself.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Why is it Google's job to reform China? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.

      How do you think dictators get to be dictators in the first place? Business is not just business.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  25. We should get it by now.. by DoctorDyna · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As Google becomes more and more popular, and thus http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/15/043 6246 more and http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/15 26221 more of a target, they are being forced to walk on eggshells, making moves like this that edge them farther out of the way of potential law suits.

    The more breathing room we give them as a company, and the less people target them, focusing law suits related to searching, with the only reason they sue google being they are the most recognizable, then the less likely they are to become "evil". We sue them into the ground, then it becomes news when they turtle?

    --
    Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
  26. This is a perfect example... by Stevecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    of why I still refuse to trust Google with my information. "Do no evil" - except when it hurts the shareholder's bottom line. Google is still a public corporation and no matter what the employees profess to strive for the company exists to create profits. I am pretty surprised that Google does not have a 10 year policy of erring on the side of morality to prove to skeptics like me that their motto is more than just marketing hype. To me it appears that having a stock price over $300.00 / share is the real priority.

    -SmR

  27. other evils by ChristTrekker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google drops conservative sites from Google News. Interesting that 98% of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats. Also, Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google.

    Now, I'm not playing a partisan finger-pointing game. But these kinds of "censorship" tactics give the appearance of "evil" worse than that which they are trying to avoid, IMO. Especially when there seems to be political motives. If some news site posts factual news, real honest truth, then I don't see how you can object to it on any basis just because you don't happen to like it. That holds whether the truth hurts the political Right or the political Left.

    --

    Constitutionally Correct

  28. Talk v. Action by Churla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is nice PR and a nice spin attempt. The question is what follow through it will see. Maybe i'm just too dyed in the wool of my cynicism but right now the only "wrestling with the problem" they are doing is rolling around on a pile of money they are making through compromising thier ethical stance.

    It will boil down to which is more important, profits or ethics. They're a publically held company which makes me think ethics won't win.

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  29. Ridiculous by simscitizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did you RTFA? All he says is he can see why someone else would come to a different conclusion than they did. And it's not like Google pulling out is going to do a shit. You think making a search engine is something special? If Google pulls out, they'll just use some other censored search engine like Baidu. If eBay pulls out, they'll just use another online auction site. No matter what any corporation does, it won't have a damn effect on the grand scale in China. There is enough technical expertise there already to do anything an American company would--perhaps inferior, but none of these things (search engines, auction sites, portals, etc...) are rocket science. Pulling American corporations out of China (to be replaced by native corporations) would only lessen our fucking leverage in China. Think about it.

    The middle class (the people in China that can actually USE the internet) there is growing and prosperous. By and large, they're damn happy with the ways things have gone since 1989. (If you don't believe so, I invite you to visit any modern Chinese city and look at its amazing rate of development.) If there's going to be any revolt, it'll probably be from the countryside...from the people who don't have internet access anyway.

  30. What is the motto, really? by indrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it "Do no Evil" or "Don't be evil" ?
    I've heard both attributed to the Google motto, but they are very different imperatives.

    There are moral models in which a good person might have to do an evil for some greater good. (Work with China for the purpose of engagement)
    It would also be possible to produce horrible effect without ever commiting any identifiable evil act. (We are just following the local laws.)

  31. Show them you care by dino303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google is one of the very few companies which have a chance to remain "morally good" while still being successful. They just need to know that the people appreciate their "don't be evil" credo. For those who care checkout http://web.amnesty.org/pages/internet-110506-actio n-eng. regards lukas

  32. What is everyone do mad about? by ZSpade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, what options did google have? It could either appeal to the Chinese government, or not offer it's service to the chinese people in any shape or form. I think everyone needs to take a step back and look at the real evil in this picture: China. China is responsible for this whole mess, whether google is there or not there will exist censorship, and almost no human rights, especially the right of free speech.

    I'm not saying Google can truly do no evil, I simply do not think they have done any evil here, not to merit the criticsm they have received for their actions at least.

    --
    Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
  33. Remember South Africa pre-1994? by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before 1994, South Africa held the title of "most hated nation". Nations who persisted in trading with South Africa said that not to do so would disadvantage the poorest, mainly black, South Africans. Other nations ranted against South Africa whilst perpetrating their own heinous abuses of human rights.

    Anyway, Google run their server farms on cheap motherboards ..... where do they think the components for those boards are made?

    The unpleasant truth is that it's damned nigh impossible to avoid doing business with China one way or another. And if you do manage to avoid China, then you will end up paying over the odds for everything you buy, and be unable to compete in the marketplace.

    Write to your Elected Representatives and ask them why we are allowed to import goods which have been manufactured under conditions which would not be acceptable in the destination country? It's all very well for countries such as Britain and the USA to have environmental, consumer protection and workers' rights laws; but when imported goods sidestep those laws, locally-produced goods become uncompetitive and the benefits that should have brought by those laws are lost. Something's got to be wrong when it's cheaper to fly a plane halfway round the world and back than to treat your workers like human beings.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  34. The best approach by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The best approach is for Google not to self censor. Google should offer a Chinese language portal, and make the results as broad as the English language portal.

    Should China's firewall decide to censor certain portions of the portal, or certain search terms, thats not a big deal; that's China's responsibility.

    This means:
    A) Google doesn't _really_ have to pull out; they just have to run their operations off-shore (from China).
    B) Google doesn't have to actively work to circumvent Chinese law. That would be illegal. Rather, Google provides Chinese language search results to the whole world, and China is reponsible for filtering content at the ISP level.
    C) Savvy internet users in China may be able to circumvent the law, similar to the way they current use proxies to get at unfiltered English language results.

    This paints Google as a bastion of freedom, while still maintaining best-possible service in the Chinese language, and dumping all the responsibility of censoring to China's state-run ISPs.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    1. Re:The best approach by koreth · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean like this? (Which is not the same thing as this.)

  35. Theory of political composting by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If Google is not evil and China is, then it's just logical that they'd pull out. We wouldn't want a rift in the space-time continuum now, would we?

    I don't know about that.

    The thing is, uncomfortable engagement can be more effective than complete, self-satisfied and puritanical shunning. There's no end to what people will do to push back against those who shun them. In fact it becomes a useful explanation for every failure: the bad guys are out to get us. Think Castro.

    Most of the time advocates of "constructive engagement" are just hypocrites who want to pay lip service to right and wrong. Google is not like that, I think, but it puts them in a sticky position. Some will fight them on moral grounds. Others will waffle in between. It's a messy and uncomfortable situation, whereas boycott is very clean and simple. The good thing about it is that it has the effect of making the party in question deal with the messiness, to explain and justify itself over and over. They'll spin, adjust, tweak and struggle to find some kind of comprimse that will square the circle. It's never enough to make them decide to take their ball and go home, but it never ends either. It'll be a continual embarassment. When the elite travel overseas, there'll always be a moment of uncomfortable silence when they talk to somebody while that person tries to figure out a way to navigate around the proverbial elephant in the room. Eventually, they may just decide it's eaasier to change than to put up with it. Think South Africa.

    So, what I'm saying is it's a good thing that Google is involved with China, although it is not necessarily "good" in a moral sense. And at the same time it's also a good thing that China and Google are getting a PR hiding by people. If Google is forced out, let's hope it's after a long struggle. Then China and the paladins of human rights can start struggling over choice #2. Then #3, #4 etc.

    It's an unappealing situation for the people involved, because it's messy. But messy is sometimes good. Keep it very nearly unbearably messy, but not quite. That's the ticket. Turn it into a tub of pig shit with a pot of gold at the bottom. Sooner or later they'll decide to quick trying to fish the pot out with a stick and muck out the shit.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Theory of political composting by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Normally that's true, and courts have upheld that profit maximization is expected, but "Don't be evil" and "Making the world a better place" are both clearly stated in Google's IPO prospectus. Stockholders shouldn't be surprised if they do what they said they were going to do when they went public. It might be different if they made no mention of it.

  36. Moral and Profitable and not opposites by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a little tired of this constant false distinction between what's good for business and what's moral or ethical. The way I see it, what's moral or ethical is just so *because* it is good for your survival in the longest, broadest consideration of things.

    I like to use a swimming analogy. We're all in an infinite sea, with no shores and no bottom. To stay afloat (alive), you've got to do something that keeps you from sinking. The obvious answer here is "swim!", but consider that you could also hang off of a couple other people, or if you've got dense enough masses of people around, climb on top of them and get yourself clear out of the water. In this analogy, swimming is doing anything good and productive that keeps you afloat. A lone swimmer not near anyone else would be like a subsistence farmer. Helping those who can't swim, holding them up (so long as you're not drowning yourself), is doing a supererogatory deed, going beyond the call of duty to do good. Hanging off of other people is bad (though their helping to keep you up is good), and walking all over them is clearly bad.

    But why are those things good or bad? Simple: if everyone were to hang off of everyone else, and nobody was swimming, we'd all drown. Morals are by definition meant to be universal codes of behavior, so something is immoral if and only if, if everyone were to do that, the results would be bad. It follows from this that the only reason anyone ever does anything immoral is because they're being short-sighted: walking all over people seems good for you in the short term, but in the big picture you're giving yourself a small gain at the expense of an overall greater loss across the whole mass of people, including yourself. If everyone were to do that you'd be screwed; the only reason it seems good at all in the short term is by virtue of all those hard-working swimmers you're walking over.

    The thing I don't quite get is that, while humans have an excuse to be short-sighted since the shit quite often won't hit the fan within their lifetime, corporations are potentially immortal and so I'd think that they would be the longest-planning, most moral entities around, looking out for the economic well-being of the world. In some sense they are, with the pervasive pressure from above for the working class to work harder, but the strongest leadership is by example, and the more people and corporations we have making it rich by riding over others, the more the next generation is going to avoid working if at all possible to try and be a rich corporate executive and/or shareholder instead... and then, once enough people are resting comfortably on the shoulders of a few exhausted swimmers, they'll all drown; or at least, once those swimmers drown, or throw the fatasss freeriders off, they'll all have to start swimming again.

    I guess the answer is that corporations are still being run by humans, which are usually short-sighted creatures, and who don't care if their corporations die eventually so long as it makes them rich in the short term. But maybe, to bring it back on topic, some people aren't so short-sighted and want to do something that will last beyond their own lives. I know I certainly do; to establish an enduring legacy, make some long-lasting positive impact on the world, is the closest thing to immortality anyone can achieve. Maybe the folks in charge of Google want that too. And they've actually got an opportunity here to do so. So don't discount all claims of morality out-of-hand by saying that they're only driven by profit. It can be both, and must be both if you're looking at the longest long run, which all of these immortal corporations ought to be doing.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  37. There was a lengthy analysis of Google's actions by boethius · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... months ago and honestly I can't remember where. One of the major rags like Business Week or Wired.

    Anyway, in short it noted that Google, along with MSN and Yahoo (both of whom have also "cooperated" with the Chinese government), have taken the policy of what I'd call accretive decensorship; that is, they are all starting from the position that some things (many things, indeed) must be censored, the Chinese government does not have a master list of what words or phrases must be censored ("Falun Gong" and "Tiananmen Square Massacre" would certainly be a couple), and therefore they all start with a default position of testing the limits of governmental censorship. In other words, you basically do what you want until Beijing throws the hammer down and throws you in jail and/or shuts you down, which happens frequently. Basically they're sitting there watching traffic and will arbitrarily decide which search terms are acceptable and which are not. A Chinese political blogger was put up as an example as someone who ranted for several months but was eventually shut down by the government.

    Users in the West have a skewed perception I think of how "evil" Google is being here because the Chinese themselves have grown accustomed to this kind of censorship--not that this is right, per se, but by Chinese standards even a little bit of permissiveness by the government is considered wholly revolutionary. Basically Google, MSN, Yahoo, Baidu, etc. are dancing on a tightrope of what is and is not acceptable content according to the government. This is what I mean by accretive decensorship: Either by the action or inaction of the Chinese government and the action of western business forces like Google there will be a slow and steady decensorship of content. Google is playing a cautious game that all western business must play if they want to make inroads into the world's most explosive economy.

  38. Ha! And now it makes sense by ihatewinXP · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well the story we got in China today was quite different....

    404 error. Server stopped responding. Blah blah generic (but obvious) "Great Firewall" block.

    Google.com and gmail were down sporadicaly all day. My company is currently talking to google about training, i would have loved to have been in that office today watching them flip. Beijing will make you respect their power, if google doesnt want to play nice alibaba, yahoo, MSN and many others will. Remember that companies are not run by public opinion, they are run by stockholders - if I owned google stock i would be furious if they werent doing everything tay could to corner China.

      Also of note I saw a message that all of our favorite proxy hosts have been busted by the great firewall as of today (on some news service). I havent bothered to check myself but tey were explicitly named and it was pretty obvious that it was just a matter of time. Good thing there are alternatives...

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
  39. Perspectives by Datasage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did google do the right thing is changing is buisness practices to do business in china?

    The problem is what is the right action on googles part in this situation. If you look at the issue of ethical company practices, it is correct for a company to follow the laws of the country that its doing business in.

    But in this case the law has to do with censorship and freedom of speech. Each culture has its own perspectives on freedom of speech. Even in the US, speech is not completly free (libel, slander, media gatekeepers, political correctness, hate speech).

    China has its own ideas of what free speech means. Sure many people in the US and Europe dont agree with it. But at the same time, there hasnt been a revolution in China to change that. Its not Google's or any corporations job to change that. They are responsible to thier shareholders and responsible for following the law where ever they do buisness. Free speech in China will come, when the people of China want it.

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
  40. Google censors in the US, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Google has a pronounced political bias, and they regularly censor sites they don't like, that are on a different point of the political spectrum, right here in these United States.

  41. pulling out more moral than staying out by selfdiscipline · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is interesting to me, is the thought that pulling out could potentially do more good in China than staying out could have.

    Consider this situation: Google abruptly ends service in China, replacing their main page with a brief message that says something like, "Google is halting search service in china because they are unable to comply with Chinese law." They could post this with no explanation, and then later they could post an explanation that gave their moral stance, with justification by example (I.E. Tiananmen Square). This would be blocked quickly of course, but if their original posting created sufficient mystery, maybe chinese would be inclined to research the issue, and I assume some would see the explanation, and be able to spread the word. Creating mystery is a good way to create awareness.

    Being a popular search engine in China gets them more visibility than if they'd decided to stay out of China from the beginning.

    However, maybe causing public unrest is amoral. Destabilizing the Chinese government is no good unless the people really have good idea of what they'd replace it with, how they'd do it, and if they'd really have the commitment to see it through.

    The one of the Chinese government's roles is to protect people against themselves, and I think they do this fairly well. Are lack of political freedoms worth a revolution that could severely reduce the quality of life in the country? I imagine it would be much worse than Iraq, if the leadership fell.

    I confess to being a google apologist/fanboy/whatever. I think only the innocently idealistic would found a company with the corporate slogan "do no evil". I don't think their self-censoring presence in china is amoral.

    I don't really believe in morality. It's just another banner for people to wave to justify their actions.

    I believe in trying to be good and in reflection on past actions, but I don't believe in the condensing good down into general principles. People make rules, and they turn off their brain.

    And you can talk about short-term consequences of your actions, and you can talk about long term consequences, but human lives are short when taken into the life of all humanity, and we haven't reached any sort of conclusion where we can sit back and reflect on what was truely good, and what was truely bad. Maybe the Holocaust provided a terrible lesson that will stay in the cultural conscious and prevent possible future ethnic cleansings. And so it would be good. It could be both good and bad.

    Damn, this is my most indugent, rambling post ever.

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  42. Can't enjoy unless perfect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The U.S. is not perfect (voting citizen speaking here) but it is damned good.

    You can insult the President, swear at the VP and still go home to your family. Try that in another country.

    While the U.S. is slowly dying, it has been a wonderful place. Sadly the Republic turned into a Democracy and finally now into Lawyer and Mob rule. Sad days are ahead but looking back, we have changed the world. Slavery, woman's rights, equality, free speech.....thanks to a bunch of rebels in boats.

    1. Re:Can't enjoy unless perfect? by zsau · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slavery was abolished in the British Empire by 1838; it was not abolished in the US till 1865. Women had the right to vote in New Zealand from 1893; in the US it was not until 1920 (with legislation at a federal level overturning territory legislation as late as 1887. Desegregation is associated with the US because segregation was...

      Don't fool yourself: America had some early innovations, but has been very conservative ever since. It's what happens when you teach yourselves you're perfect already.

      --
      Look out!
  43. The Tiananmen Square Example by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.

    What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example...

    Here's a Google.com search for "tiananmen"
    http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen

    Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen"
    http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

    creepy huh?

    Frontline did a piece about this a few months ago. It was called "The Tank Man" and it's viewable online.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/vi ew/

    Watch part 6, "The struggle to control information." A journalist hands a picture of the tank man to several Chinese university students, and they have -no- idea what the picture is about. That's crazy.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:The Tiananmen Square Example by rm69990 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but had you bothered to translate the Google.cn page you linked to into English, you would see that they do infact notify their users that results have been removed.

      http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fima ges.google.cn%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtiananmen&langpair=zh -CN%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8

      As shown in the (admittedly shitty) translation:

      " According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show."

      Babelfish shows the exact same thing, although you'll have to do that yourself since it appears I cannot link directly to a translated page like I can with Google.

      So, with that in mind, how is Google censoring results without notifying their users, when it clearly says right on the page that results have been removed?

    2. Re:The Tiananmen Square Example by clragon · · Score: 3, Informative
      What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example... . . . Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen" http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

      Google does tell the users that the results are cencored. They even got blasted by the state ran media in China for doing so. (it was by XingHua I think...
      Right at the bottom of the page is this
      ""
      a rough translation is "according to local law and policies, some parts of the search results will not be shown".

      regarding the video you posted, yes, ofcourse not a lot of students in China can be exactly sure what that picture is about, since they probably never seen it before. But that does not prevent them from knowing about the '89 masacare that took place. Some bad translation was in the video, somewhere after 1 min, the narrator says "the boy said 89","but the girl made no connection". However when the boy said 89 in Chinese, the girl actually answered "probably" in chinese. A few words makes a huge difference. It shows how students in China does know about this issue, even thou it never comes up in Chinese media.
      Also, most Chinese does not want to do anything that will provoke the government. I don't know much about the backgrounds of the interview, but if a foriegn interviewer came to me to conduct an interview, asking me things that is very much sensitive to the government, I would just pretend to know nothing, since the governement could easily come the next day and expell me from the university without giving a valid reason. So in this interview, it is distinct possibility that the students might have guessed it was the 89 masacare, but pretended to not know about the issue, just so that they wont have to deal with the government.
  44. Re:Minimum level of respect for other human begins by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think you got your rants confused with Nike or someother company than Google. All Google did was try to provide their search and other internet services in China and ran in to the fact that China places some draconian restrictions on them. After living with them for a while they did the right thing in their view and are pulling out.

    STOP BITCHING WHEN THEY DID THE RIGHT THING.

    "A company that supports censorship in other nations, while enjoying freedom in it's own is totally unacceptable."

    Hate to break it to you but nearly every country censors, the only issue is the degree and what. China is certainly on the high end of the scale. You can for example not say a LOT of words or show a lot of things on American media without getting fined or eventually driven off the air. The fines are in the process of being increased from something like $30K to $300K per incident. Pornography is heavily censored in many countries and standards vary widely. Are you saying a company that aids in censorship of pornography or obscene words from children is doing something morally and ethically reprehensible or are they being ethically responsible? Some European countries have some truly draconian censorship of anything relating to Fascism and Nazism. By your standard any company condoning this is detestable.

    "A company that exploits forced prison labor camps in China"

    You did know U.S. companies use U.S. prison labor didn't you? Microsoft used to or probably still does package some of its products using prison labor at the Twin Rivers Correctional Facility in Washington. Couple this with the fact the U.S. has one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world and your holier than thou pitch doesn't fly.

    "Contracting with company to produce your product that pays young men and women an amount of money that is not very much, even in their poor country"

    So you are proposing it would be be better if those men and women have no work at all? Sure it would be nice if they got a living wage but what that is tends to vary with each person's opinion and government mandated minimum wages have problems in their own right. If you put a minimum wage in one place and some other place doesn't then unfortunately, in a globalized world, a lot of jobs will migrate to where that cheapest labor is. It is an unfortunate fact of life when you live under Capitalism and in a semi free world.

    Yes low wages jobs suck but it kind of follows that if those people are working there of their own volition those jobs are probably better than the other jobs available to them. Its kind of easy to rant sitting in some affluent country without appreciating that if you got your wish and those jobs disappeared then those people would be worse off than they are now.

    "A company is not an soulless entity that has no responsibility to humanity."

    Actually yes it is whether you like it or not. If the executives and board decide its in their interest andtheir shareholders interest to behave ethically and morally then great ... unless of course they do something stupid in the process and tank the company wiping out the shareholders investment and the employees jobs.

    If the executive and board opt to behave in a manner you don't consider ethical then its your prerogative to not buy their products or start a crusade against them or get a law passed against whatever they are doing.

    It isn't your right or prerogative to demand that everyone adhere to your ethical standards. Companies really only need to operate within the laws in the countries where they operate. If a country doesn't have a minimum wage and its employees are starving that is probably ultimately an issue for the country to solve through its governmental process.

    --
    @de_machina