Google Committed to Chinese Business

Snowgen writes "Despite this week's earlier story that hinted Google may consider pulling out of China over the topic of censorship, Reuters is now quoting Sergey Brin as saying that 'Google Inc. is committed to doing business in China despite criticism the company has faced for abiding by Chinese government censorship restrictions.'" More from the article: "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."

Comments

Typo in headline

[winkydink]

It should read "Google committed to Chinese Revenue"

Re:Typo in headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has a legal obligation to make money for its shareholders. The US forces foreign companies to obey its laws when operating in the US, why should it be different for China? Oh, but you probably can't hear me because you are too busy using your ipod, computer, cell phone, or any of the other 50 things in your immediate vicinity that were made by evil China.

Re:Typo in headline

[GPLDAN]

Google committed to share price. As somebody who rode a measly $5k up to $30k with Google shares, I happily have now stepped off the bandwagon of shareholders. The stock is overvalued. Google spreadhseet has showed that while AJAX Web apps have many neat features, they are not ready to take the place of OpenOffice.


What they think will gain from being in China will get offset by the corruption that will infiltrate the company. Pretty soon, the Chinese will want Google's research to start occuring over there, or they pull the plug. Anything they don't like, they'll pull the plug. Volunteering to work with them ultimately is far less profitable than working in a true free economy.

Re:Typo in headline

[LionATL]

It should read "Google committed to censorship."

Re:Typo in headline

[Irish_Samurai]

No. Google does not have a legal obligation to make money for it's shareholders.

Google has a legal obligation to behave in a manner dictated to it by the voting shareholders. While this is usually a directive to make money, it could be other things. It just so happens that Page and Brin have 66.2 percent of the voting power. So they can actually do whatever they want to do. THEY are the final word on China or not, so you can point the finger directly at them.

Re:Typo in headline

[earthstar]

Considering the two recent press releases,its more like a show off..:
Something like,"It Hurts us morally you know to see whats happening in China,but what to do :( "

Kinda making a win win situation for'em by complying inside china, and at the same time trying to pacify others with democracy concerns - "Its so bad in china..blah blah"

Re:Typo in headline

[quanticle]

In this, China is much like WalMart. Sure, you get the access to the world's largest middle-class, but, in return, the Chinese have you on a leash. Any time you do something internally that the Chinese dislike, they can tug the leash by threatening to revoke access to their market.

The same principle applies to WalMart. By getting access to WalMart you get access to the largest distribution system in the world. Initially, this is a huge windfall for your company. However, later on you see that you've given up a lot of control in return for access. Walmart (or China) can regulate your internal decisions by virtue of the fact that you're tied to their market.

Re:Typo in headline

[codzumd]

No. Google has a fiduciary responsibility to create profit for its' shareholders. Finance 101.

Re:Typo in headline

[Irish_Samurai]

In the manner directed to them by the voting shareholders.

Re:Typo in headline

[Irish_Samurai]

Sorry for replying twice, submit is not preview - and I'm hasty.

Your statement, a quote from Milton Friedman, is not a law. While I will acknowledge it is a major school of economic thought concerning the roles and responsibilities of public companies, it has never been legislated directly as such.

Legislation concerning public companies generally (varies by state) focuses on the allowance of shareholders to vote on issues concerning the company as a whole, the proportionate owership of assets in a company by a stock holder, the allowance of a stock holder to transfer shares, the payment of dividends, access to corporate books for your shareholders, and the possibility of being sued for wrongful acts.

I have yet to find a law stating that a public company MUST do everything in its power to make money for its shareholders.

Re:Typo in headline

[GoofyBoy]

When the majority of voting shareholders are actively managing the company, how can that rule apply? Google could lose money and as long as the majority of shareholders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are ok with that what can anyone do?

The minority shareholders can't out-vote the majority.
The government officials are not going to step in just because a company is running out of money.

Thats Reality 101.

Principles? What're those?

[drinkypoo]

Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'.

He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[NoTheory]

This is a race to the bottom. I think the ambivelence that Google displays is a reasonable response to a complicated issue. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to say you will cooperate with someone who is doing something that you dislike, because not cooperating is not going to stop them, and at least if you're the one cooperating, you know what's going on, and you can shape the process.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Ksevio]

If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion. You'd also probably thing it was evil of google to abandon your country. As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible. Removing a major part of the population would be much worse than just removing some of the content.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[drinkypoo]

As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible. Removing a major part of the population would be much worse than just removing some of the content.

The government removes people. Google removes content. Google is complying with the wishes of the government, thus lending them power, thus helping them remove people. The american consumer, by buying Chinese products, is helping pay Chinese taxes, thus helping the government kill people. But, the American people haven't promised to "do no evil". Google has. Google is lying. Don't trust google. Don't trust Brin. Etc.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Irish_Samurai]

Wow. You are really off the mark.

If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion

This stance is so tired. Google is doing no good in China. Google doesn't have the ability to change a thing in China. Good search results (subjective) do not feed starving peoples, unseat oppresive leaders, or aid in revolts and protests. Especially if these results are pre-emptively censored.

I have yet to hear a Chinese citizen say "If only we had Google to search from we could change our nation."

As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible.

Wrong.

1. Google isn't a search company. Google has a search engine. Google is an advertising company selling searchers to advertisers. Google presents itself as a "Search Company" to the public eye because its a better PR stance.
2. Thier job is to get as many searchers as possible to sell advertising to, not to get content to them. They attract these searchers by providing content, it is a means to an end - not the driving purpose.

Once you understand the fact that the searchers are the product, you will see that there is nothing positive about Google going into China. Its meerly a matter of making the largest Internet userbase in the world available to advertisers.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Ksevio]

So you think that if the US started making google censor some more of the content then it would be no good at all? I personally use google for a lot of things, most of them would not be censored. I would much rather have the crippled version than no version of google.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[kesuki]

as long as the chinese are commited to censorship i'm glad there are open source projects out there to to help protect people from that kind of ruthless censorship.

As long as sites like the sourceforge are around, people will be able to communicate freely. Google is a busisness, they need to have project that make money, but to be honest if the chinese were so determined to end freedom of speech I'd be 100% behind google finding other ventures to make money at.

I have spent the last 12 years of my life believing that on the internet I could say Anything, at times it's been the only thing keeping me going. China should back off, and if china doesn't back off google should rally around the summer of code to help keep everyone liberties secure. afterall if they're making money off the chinese market they should pay a little forward.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Billosaur]

He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

And somewhere in Redmond, WA, someone is cackling...

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Irish_Samurai]

Yay for your choice of search engines.

Search results are subjective. Because you think Google is great doesn't mean jack. Becuase you would still use google's search if it became censored here in America doesn't mean jack. Your opinions are not fulcrums of logical arguments. Your only standing argument is boils down to "I like Google."

No, I wouldn't prefer a crippled anything to the real deal.

Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[geoffspear]

While I disagree with GP's opinion, you're attacking a straw man. No one asked if you'd prefer a censored Google to a non-censored Google. He asked if you'd prefer a censored Google or no Google at all.

Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.

So every search engine in existence is worthless? I disagree. The degree of censorship is certainly inversely proportional to the actual value to a person searching, but unless the censorship involves removing every single possible search result, it doesn't render the search engine "worthless". Would a search engine that included no hardcore pornography be "worthless" if the person using it was trying to find information about chemistry?

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Doctor Memory]

As long as sites like the sourceforge are around, people will be able to communicate freely

Might want to take a break from the bong for a few days, dude. Sites have to be accessed, so if someone else controls the access it doesn't matter how free & open the site is. There was an open relay notifier, but it's gone now, which kind of sums up the situation.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Irish_Samurai]

Would a search engine that included no hardcore pornography be "worthless" if the person using it was trying to find information about chemistry?

This is a valid point, and one that I'm not denying - but in this discussion it somewhat of a moot point.

The overall point of the GGP/GP was that a censored Google is better than no Google at all for China. I didn't really clarify my rebuttal, and looking back at my post it looks like I think any censored search engine is completely useless - a ridiculous stance to take. In the context of China though, Google isn't doing anything that other search engines are already doing. The stance that Google is doing "some good" are just fanboi declarations because they hate having their darling ripped to shreds for its hypocrisy. Can you use it for search, sure. But the way a search engine was being employed in his argument was as some tool for democratic change. A censored google is useless in that regard.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[iminplaya]

...Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

And judging by their buying and voting habits, it appears that the majority agrees with that opinion.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Brin's conversation with the Chinese government went something like this Groucho Marx quote...

"Those are my principles, gentlemen. If you don't like them... I have others."

Continuation

[Kesch]

"Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."

The article goes on to say:

Brin said these words as a group of stockholders stood behind him holding a shotgun and several cattle prods

Re:Continuation

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Sergei & Brin own over 66% of the stock, they are pointing the shotgun and cattle prods at each other, I presume?

Re:Continuation

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Brin said these words as a group of stockholders stood behind him holding a shotgun and several cattle prods

All while dancing, nubile imperial concubines and heavy sacks of pristine tea leaves and silk dangled seductively directly in front of the podium.

Google better should do so as U.S. one will bust

[unity100]

As the Telcos got what they wanted to get to do with internet, i suspect that almost all of us will be vying for the freedom and equal opportunity of the internet in china.

Google should do wise to stay in china, as the thing closest to internet as we know it will only exist in china after some 6-12 months, thanks to 'Telecommunications OPPORTUNITY' act.

What "opportunity" this is i wonder ... Opportunity to f.ck up the biggest technological&international revolutiuon in the history of the world ?

Bad dog

[cuantar]

Google is appearing more and more like a Real American Corporation(TM) with each passing day. Shame on them.

Re:Bad dog

[cuantar]

Who the hell is Alex P Keaton? Think you've got the wrong guy :)

Re:Bad dog

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Google is appearing more and more like a Real American Corporation(TM) with each passing day. Shame on them.

Gee whiz, maybe that's because they are a Real American Corporation. Tell you what, if you don't like Google or what they are doing, stop using them. It's the least you can do.

Re:Bad dog

[Buran]

You missed the point.

Google's motto is "Do no evil".

Corporations do evil things.

Hence, Google becoming a RAC (tm) means that Google is being evil.

Which means Google is lying in its very motto.

Re:Bad dog

[burningion]

Google is a bad dog.

They're trying to play the good guy all the time, and most people eat it right up, while ignoring the facts.

Facts about Google

• They own the search records of everyone who uses their engine
• They have permanent records of millions of emails
• Their Adsense campaign could potentially be used to track web users
• Their Analytics campaign is getting a whole lot of valuable information about websurfers for free
• They submit the influence of questionable governments when profitability comes into question
• They stand to benefit from the loss of net neutrality (Raises the cost of entry to become the next Google. Think, people! Brin is doing his "last minute" campaign as a ploy. If the net neutrality really affected the BILLIONS of Google's dollars, would he have shown up in a t-shirt and jeans? And acted like he didn't know how lobbying really works in the US?)

Am I the only one who sees the MAJOR threat of Google's monopoly on the flow of all information on the net? They will be more evil than Microsoft ever was. Microsoft never had so much power, and this much sainthood. Ladies and gentlemen, get your tinfoil hats.

Re:Bad dog

[cuantar]

Exactly. Funny how you get modded insightful, while I'm a troll. *grin*

Re:Bad dog

[Buran]

The day people here do anything logical is the day my head explodes.

Re:Bad dog

[FurryFeet]

But since Google is a corporation, and therefore evil, then lying is perfectly on character. So, they shouldn't get flamed; on the contrary, I think they deserve a nice XP bonus, don't you?

Re:Bad dog

[Irish_Samurai]

No you are not the only one. I tried to speak out once and all of my posts were modded troll and flamebait.

Trying to educate this crowd on the fact that they are the product is difficult at best and hellish at worst. Let's not get into trying to enlighten people that Google is quickly becoming a monopoly. You immediately get hit with at least 3 responses of "You can't have a monopoly on search" and one troll. Never mind that the monopoly is on online advertising - not search.

Yea sure

[bwd]

They are making it sound like they are taking some kind of stand in China. That is the impression I'm getting out of their comments. That is all BS. They're making the decision to not get left out of the China market even if that means compromising every principle they have. They are commited to making money in China, not free speech.

Re:Yea sure

[TheBogie]

I'm getting the feeling that Sergay and Brin have let the billions go to their heads. I'm pretty sure they would personally hook up car batteries to the nuts of chinese dissidents if they thought it would send GOOG stock up a few bucks.

When will they decide that they have made enough money? When every scrotum in china has electrodes attached to it?

Re:Yea sure

[Anonymous Coward]

They're making the decision to not get left out of the China market

They're doing the same thing with their employees.

How does that old saying go?

[Blue6]

Oh ya, It's money talks bullsh!t walks.

Re:How does that old saying go?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say "bullshit" on slashdot. Nobody's stopping you. Seriously, you're just making yourself look like a fool. If you don't want to say it for some reason, then don't say it.

Re:How does that old saying go?

[Blue6]

Maybe I'm just trying to be respectful to fellow ./ er's and the children of course.

Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just one question for Brin: If censoring words like "democracy" to the people of the world's largest country, because you were asked to by its authoritarian government, isn't an "evil" thing for a company in the information-distribution business to do, then what exactly would qualify as "evil", if anything?

Re:Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we could Google Bomb "democracy" to "goatse" and then you'd be thanking them for the cencorship. Just a thought.

Re:Question for Brin

[kfg]

. . .what exactly would qualify as "evil", if anything?

Falling stock prices.

KFG

Re:Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

Google can't do everything. They can't just uncensor their China sites and give full access to Chinese citizens, since they'd just be blocked entirely. This isn't an argument between censoring "democracy" and not censoring at all. It's between censoring "democracy" and getting COMPLETELY censored. I personally feel providing some information is better than providing none. It's not like Google is actively producing propaganda for China or something. Both choices would be looked upon unfavorably, so they picked what they believed would be the lesser of two evils (presumably). Also consider, it's easy to say Google operating in China is a bad thing if you're not in China. If you were living in China right now, though, would you rather go to Google.com and find nothing, or find a usable search engine that says "this is censored by your government" when you get results back?

Re:Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

Also consider, it's easy to say Google operating in China is a bad thing if you're not in China. If you were living in China right now, though, would you rather go to Google.com and find nothing, or find a usable search engine that says "this is censored by your government" when you get results back?

In other words, by providing *no* search results they would upset the populace ... and Google wouldn't want to do that. Not when the authoritarian government asked them not to!

Keeping the masses happy is more important than providing access to information? Nope, that's not evil...

Re:Question for Brin

[Greg@RageNet]

I personally feel providing some information is better than providing none. It's not like Google is actively producing propaganda for China or something.

That's a lame argument. Google is materially providing support to the oppresive regime in China because they operate there.

1) Their chinese subsidiary pays taxes to the chinese government.

2) The chinese government benefits directly from using google.

3) By censoring they are perpetuating the chinese government's propaganda by showing only it's world-view. Now it's not just the chinese government that says nothing happened in tiananmen square, ask google.cn, and their engine will not have a single bad thing to say about tiananmen square either.

4) Their economy benefits from the use of google (think productivity increases). Their economic engine directly supports their regime via tax revenue.

So google is benefiting the regime directly by providing tax revenues for more tanks and missles; and indirectly by reenforcing and perpetuating their government's propaganda.

Re:Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I didn't say there was a non-evil option. They chose one of two evils. You can either screw over Chinese citizens and give them none of what you have or you can screw over the Chinese government and give them none of your money. You can't have it both ways, though. Your argument is lame in ignoring the benefits to the Chinese people of having _a_ search engine (censored or not), rather than having nothing (obviously there are others, but from this point of view one could argue that the others should pull out as well). I acknowledge there are both issues, and I would choose to provide some access rather than none. This is good from a business point of view, and it's not much better or worse from an "evilness" point of view. You can't seriously think that Google not being in China hurts the Chinese economy enough for it to make an impact anyway (China won't fall without their money). Besides which, I never stated that Google wasn't supporting China by working there, it's just that it really doesn't matter one way or another on that scale (unless there WERE actively producing propaganda).

Re:Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, I didn't say there was a non-evil option. They chose one of two evils.

You're seriously claiming that not going out of your way to provide a search engine to a country qualifies as "evil"?

Lots of Google's services aren't provided if you have a particular language set -- is it "evil" to not provide Google Calendar to Turkish-speakers?

Or is it "evil" to fail to provide *any* (information) service to *anybody*? They must be "evil" for not yet having a free word processor for me to use.

You, sir, have a strange definition of "evil".

Famous Last Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Brin: Where is my company's motto? Is she safe? Is she all right?
China: It seems that in your anger, you killed her.
Brin: I... I couldn't have. She was alive. I felt her. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Re:Famous Last Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Just interested as a non-native English speaker.
Why do you take "motto" as a feminine noun? Why is it she and not he or it?..

Re:Famous Last Words

[Alkrun]

He was stealing/butchering a quote from Star Wars Episode III. In the quote in the movie they're talking about a woman.

Re:Famous Last Words

[Irish_Samurai]

What, they don't have Star Wars in your country? Do you live in China? Well, you might be able to Google it. Or maybe not.

Re:Famous Last Words

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. I haven't seen the latest episode. The only famous quote I recall from the Star Wars is the one with the great disturbance in the force.

Why is everyone amazed?

[mikesd81]

Google is above all a business. A business is to make money. They stood for American rights when the gov't wanted documents. It seems everyone is forgetting this when the Google China stories creep up. Consider: If you own a business and you open an office in China and you want to make money....will you defy the Chinese gov't? Or will you conform to their laws and policies?

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[casings]

So in other words, you're saying they won't compromise their beliefs when there is very little threat of losing money, but they will compromise their beliefs if the chances to lose out on revenue is very high.

The problem with this is that this isn't a "good" principle to live by, it is in fact evil and unethical, but since it seems to be the norm in this day and age, it's understandable to see why some would deem this practice as "ok".

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[packetmon]

Google seems to be playing both sides of the fence here. I wouldn't be surprised if the US Government via Google started inserting crapaganda into China. It would be a plus for Google to get a foot in the door and get Chinese revenue since the market is huge, it would also be a plus for the US government to get in via Google (as the US always seems to do - getting a foot in the door), to unload crapaganda contrary to Chinese laws. Wouldn't be the first time. What you see here (Google in China) is nothing more than tip-toeing from Google to save face on all sides.

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[goodminton]

I agree Mike. It boggles me that so many outspoken people have this opinion that Google is coming down from some moral high-ground by doing business in China and following the laws of that country. Google is a for-profit corporation that must follow the laws of the countries they wish to do business with. The people who are upset about this are those who bought into Google's marketing message of "do no evil." Admittedly, Google's leadership panders to this misperception by "admitting mistakes" when they've done nothing of the sort. [Note to Brin, don't say something is a mistake and then keep doing it.] IMO, Google (and any other business for that matter) should be unapologetic about operating in China and following the law.
It's good to be interested in the social situations around the world but let's not have businesses be our moral leaders.

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[mikesd81]

I'm saying that business is business. They don't just have the belief of "do no evil". They also have the belief to profit. Plus, if they go against China, then how is that "do no evil" if their breaking China's law? I don't agree with China's laws, or all the laws of America for that matter, but until the laws are changed, if you want to do business in those countries then follow the law. It's no different than stores requiring shoes and a shirt. So, would you be upset if they didn't serve you because you're going against their policy?

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[drewsome]

I (probably) won't get run over by a tank if I try to enter a store without shoes or a shirt.

Unjust laws must be resisted, or they will not be overthrown.

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider: If you own a business and you open an office in China and you want to make money....will you defy the Chinese gov't? Or will you conform to their laws and policies?

You may be forgetting who you're talking to. This is the same crowd that grew up watching Star Wars -- you know, that movie about the guys who defied the big authoritarian government? We've all read Orwell. The communist Chinese government is the one that committed horrible atrocities against their own people. Remember what they did to Tibet? (Hint: it's not rich republicans who are driving around with "Free Tibet" bumper stickers on their Volkswagens.)

If I could do something that screwed over the current Chinese government in a big way, I would do it in a heartbeat, even if it cost my business some money in the short term. Absolutely.

If I was in charge at Google, I'd tell China "no thanks", and then go back to Mountain View and say "OK guys, the Chinese government is blocking *.google.com. How do we get around this?", e.g., with a P2P system, or serving up our results from other sites, ...

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the other posters already pulled out the Joe Friday speech, so my two megapesos is to add that Google is not responsible for liberating China. The Chinese people are. One would think that after cycling millions of people through US and other Western universities the Chinese would figure a way to free themselves, but so far they have either failed or have decided to accept the status quo.

Singling out Google on the basis of a "flower child" slogan sounds awfully narrow-minded in the face of massive investments in China by almost every Fortune 500 company.

If we really want to liberate China, maybe we should connect with the millions of Chinese expats here in the US and fund a revolution. Better yet, maybe we should use our resources to liberate the US.

PS -- I don't own stock in Google or in any way benefit by defending them.

Re:Why is everyone amazed?

[oahazmatt]

Oh, trust me. Don't open this can of worms. ;)

Turning their back?

[grumpyman]

Previous poster mentioned to me that "Don't be evil" and "Making the world a better place" are on their IPO prospectus. One can argue they are currently doing the opposite, hence cheating on share-holders. If fundamental principles are compromised, the end cannot justify the means.

Don't hate

[inexia]

The first rule of Google - China is that you do not talk about Google - China

I don't blame him for staying in China

[Cixel Sid]

I don't think Brin has the foresight to think this, but I say, go for it. All the communication and business is going to destroy Chinese control and censorship in a few years anyway. PRofit-driven though they are, they're inadvertantly likely going to destroy censorship. On the other hand, they could be establishing a trend of censorship and further engraining it. But I doubt it.

Re:I don't blame him for staying in China

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, they could be establishing a trend of censorship and further engraining it. But I doubt it.

Well, I'm convinced!

In other news...

[w33t]

The Chinese are upset that Google continues to do business with the democratic west.

Plain and Simple

[WED Fan]

Google is now evil. Censorship, providing access to the secret police so they can find the dissidents, and etc. is as much as breaking their vow of "Don't be evil" as a doctor taking the vow, "First, do no harm," and then providing genocidal services. It is as bad as Dow Chemical providing the means of extermination. But, Google goes in with eyes WIDE OPEN and experience knowing this is what they are doing.

Re:Plain and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

providing access to the secret police so they can find the dissidents

When the hell did they do this?! Perhaps you're thinking about Yahoo! ?

They don't even provide stuff like Gmail and other services that require authentication precisely so that if they are ever asked to provide such information, they simply don't have it!

No habla por-favor

[Stevecat]

Does this mean that Google's board of directors can neither confirm nor deny the insinuation that they may or may not have never not determined to operate within China but they are sure that they do not understand the question? That makes perfect sense!

-SmR

Planning Ahead

[Draracle]

Maybe Google just wants to get a feel for a regulated and censored internet before it comes to the West. [sarcasm]How can they "do no evil" when they allow people to search and find terrorist hate speech? [/sarcasm]

Everyone Shames Google...

[ZSpade]

But they forget who the real scourge is here. Google is no influence over policy in China, nor could it provide any uncensored searches without risking the lives of those who live there. The Chinese government is to blame here, and no matter how much we badmouth google for abiding by that countries LAWS, it will not change things. Today the people of China are opressed, Tomorrow they will be opressed, and nothing is going to change that. Google would only be depriving the Chinese of a tool by pulling out, not their rights to an uncensored world... no you can thank China for that.

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[GotenXiao]

What absolutely amazes me is that in EVERY SINGLE Google China discussion, no one says a dicky bird about MSN China, or Yahoo China, or all these other fucking search engines that have Chinese sites. Why is Google being singled out? because of their "do no evil" policy? Sorry, but I'd consider it more evil to deprive China of Google, even if it is censored.

Which would you prefer, a censored Wikipedia or no Wikipedia? I'd take censored. Something is better than nothing.

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[AEton]

Google would only be depriving the Chinese of a tool by pulling out

Heh heh heh.

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[GoofyBoy]

>Sorry, but I'd consider it more evil to deprive China of Google, even if it is censored.

Why do you say this?

Google is a company; is it wrong to deprive a group a people access to the services of a company?

Do you also think it is wrong if China kicked out Pfizer? Or Universal Studios? Or a noodle-making Japanese company?

Why do the people of China NEED the services of Google?

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[Anonymous Coward]

But they forget who the real scourge is here. Google is no influence over policy in China, nor could it provide any uncensored searches without risking the lives of those who live there.

Correction: Google has no *direct* influence over policy in China. They have potentially great indirect influence. As long as even big companies like Google fold so easily, what incentive does the Chinese government have to change anything?

The Chinese government is to blame here, and no matter how much we badmouth google for abiding by that countries LAWS, it will not change things.

Laws are independent of morality, even if you spell the word LAW with CAPTIAL LETTERS. I'm sure we can come up with laws from pretty much any country in the world that would demonstrate this for you. Should Google follow immoral laws? Most startups, by their nature, violate the LAW that you can't run a business out of your residential garage, so it certainly seems hypocritical to see a recent startup hiding behind an immoral law (even if Google was never actually in a garage).

If Google had existed a few decades ago, would they have followed the law that said their black employees had to enter through a different door, and use different restrooms? I doubt it (those northern Californians are pretty liberal!), and I would think less of them if they did -- but by violating the law, they'd be helping to overturn it.

Today the people of China are opressed, Tomorrow they will be opressed, and nothing is going to change that. Google would only be depriving the Chinese of a tool by pulling out, not their rights to an uncensored world... no you can thank China for that.

Yeah, because boycotts never helped oppressed people, right?

Remember the old fallacy "If you're not with us, you're against us"? Well, in this case it happens to be true: by supporting China's censorship, they're helping oppress the citizens, and bringing tax dollars to the government.

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[ZSpade]

good arguments, too bad your at 0 AC. I don't agree, given China's track record in not caring about whether or not a foreign software corp exists there. They have threatened microsoft on numerous occasions that they would simply do without - and that would be far more crippling than life without google in terms of world compatibility.

As for the liberal Northern Californians... that's not true. It is from San Fran and down, and maybe in Arcata/Eureka, but the rest of Norcal is actually more conservative. That's even how they vote. There have actually been several debates in the past between southern and northern CA about dividing the state into two, that way either side would not be affected by the other. It has mostly been the repulican north that wanted this though, since southern california holds most of the big cities and so the majority. (I'm from North Cal - Redding - no one else probably would have known this much otherwise, not even South Californians.)

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[smidget2k4]

Yeah, because boycotts never helped oppressed people, right?

Problem though: if Google decided not to come on over to China's side, who would really care? The Chinese people certainly wouldn't hear about it, the government would just pull the plug on Google, blocking them though the firewall and the people would happily continue using MSN/Yahoo/Another search engine. Google certainly isn't creating any good over there in China, but at the same time, they aren't doing any evil either. Google speaking out against China's oppression would only hurt them.

Boycotts only work when they get press or people know about them. If no one finds out about the boycott, then it is a pointless one. Google not doing business in China and speaking out against them wouldn't help the Chinese and probably only hurt the already unstable US-China relations, something our govn't sure wouldn't want.

It is not Googles responsibility to change China

[bunions]

And I think it's preposterous to ask them to hew to some sort of Holier-Than-Thou philosophy while the rest of the world rushes to do business with China.

Just lost a lot of respect for Google

[erroneus]

Google was a kind of hero. Then they started coming out with a bunch of crap I didn't want to see on computers like MSIE toobars and such. As a Linux user, I tried to ignore it. The stuff exists for Linux too but it's quite possible to ignore it as nothing I install comes with a google add-on leaving me with 100% control over what I install and what I don't.

Then Google's grey area in its dealings with China... then their foreshadowing of some sort of 'decision' on the matter, and now a statement stating that they aren't pulling out of China. They haven't yet assisted in the jailing of free-speech advocates... not yet any way.

Google is still my current default search engine, but only until something more "ideal" comes along.

I'll disagree.

[khasim]

I think the ambivelence that Google displays is a reasonable response to a complicated issue.

I'll disagree. I don't see it as complicated at all.

Which do you value more?
#1. Money
#2. Your claimed morals and ethics?

I don't think it's an unreasonable position to say you will cooperate with someone who is doing something that you dislike, because not cooperating is not going to stop them, and at least if you're the one cooperating, you know what's going on, and you can shape the process.

That is based upon the unstated assumption that you will have any influence in what they're planning on doing.

And once you've sold your ethics and morals, you really don't have any position to bargain from. At that point, it's all about money. If you don't agree, then they'll dump you and bring in someone else ... and you'll have been complicit in all their actions up to that point.

Most people do not understand that morals and ethics are not "fuzzy". If there are "questions", it just means that you haven't hit your core morals/ethics yet.

Re:I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people do not understand that morals and ethics are fuzzy. If there aren't questions, it just means you haven't been educated enough to understand that there really aren't absolutes in the context we call life. You tend to lump different situations together in an ill-formed attempt at naive abstraction. You use metaphors. You can't bear the thought that there isn't a god watching over you. You may have an idea of right and wrong, but damned if your's is the right one.

Re:I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

...really aren't absolutes in the context we call life

You do realize for that to be true, it would have to be an absolute?

Re:I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no absolute moral dichotomy, you arrogant nit-prick (sic)

Re:I'll disagree.

[NoTheory]

That is based upon the unstated assumption that you will have any influence in what they're planning on doing.

Of course, that's the entire point of cooperation. The Chinese government needs something from Google. Google can play ball to varying degrees, or they can stonewall and become marginalized.

Are you expendable? That's possible. But i'll put it to you again (and again this requires some trust in Google), is it not better to know for yourself what China is doing? Again, if there's no way for them to be stopped? Disengagement is not an effective solution. It's true in politics, it's true in business, it's true in society, and i'd say it holds true here too.

Obviously, i'm suggesting a pragmatic stance. And i'm going to give you a pragmatic response to your final statement. You are right regarding core morals and ethics. Once you've hit the bone, you can't cut any further. That doesn't mean that principles you are flexible on are not part of your ethical or moral structure.

Re:I'll disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should learn how to use (SIC) before you try to lay into the logic.

Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple

[twfry]

And hypocrites are the worst kind of evil

Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple

[bunions]

Get a grip. There are many worse personality traits than hypocracy. In fact, I'd be willing to guess that EVEN YOU have been guilty of hypocracy at some point in your life.

Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple

[outsider007]

Get a grip. There are many worse personality traits than hypocracy.
Like being a bad speller.
Or a spelling nazi.

Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple

[bunions]

the sad thing is, it looked right when I posted it. :(

Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's what Google gets for setting the mark so high. Ludicrous to have a corporate philosophy of "do no evil." Brin was asking for this. Too bad Google still has one of the best search engines on the web, how do you boycott that?

Hide!

[KodeJockey]

In Chinese Google, search engine finds you!

Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[BaronHethorSamedi]

A few points.

First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders. Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line. If there is "evil" here, U.S. corporate law is as much to blame as anyone.

Second, the Chinese government does not care about the First Amendment. Laudable though it might seem to take a stand and protest Chinese censorship by refusing their business, the Chinese brass would likely respond with the Mandarin equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" The censorship would continue as before, with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese search traffic (Yahoo having been notably more cooperative with the People's Republic in quashing dissenting voices than Google ever was).

If Google is really concerned about the democratic privileges of the Chinese people (which incidentally, they don't enjoy--however much Americans may find censorship to be reprehensible, China is a different country, and free speech hasn't been established there), sticking around is one of the best things they could do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer. Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

What do the people of China really gain if Google shuts down? Even redacted information, if freely available, is far better than none if we want to motivate reform. If Google pulled out, it would lose business, subject itself to legal liability, and change nothing in China in the long term. By staying, it allows the Chinese one more tool (however controlled) for obtaining and disseminating information. No barrier is as porous as one that tries to limit the flow of information; the Great Firewall can't last forever. Maybe Google can help pull it down--but not if they leave.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[Kesch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer.

You are correct. Although the creation of google.cn was not only for language barrier breaking purposes. Thanks to the great firewall of China, google.com was often incredebly slow or inaccesible most of the time. Plus it was still censored, but in ways google couldn't control or even determine.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[Irish_Samurai]

First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

No. Google is obligated by law to behave in a manner dictated to it by its voting shareholders. While this most often is "make money" it doesn't have to be so. Since Sergey and Larry own 66.2% of the voting stock, they can do whatever they feel like, without being sued.

Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line.

If you could sue a company for not profiting, the stock market wouldn't work. You sue when a company directly ignores or acts in direct opposition to the directives given to it by the voting shareholders. Bad business decisions are not one of those things.

Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

You assume the Chinese have no clue they are being oppressed. Come on. These people are fully aware of how fucked up things are in their country. A little tag on Google results is not going to motivate shit. Google's presence isn't going to change a thing. All it is going ot do is make the largest Internet userbase in the world available for marketing the shit they just made back to them.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[ericspinder]

First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject[Google is]...under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

As others have pointed out, they are under the stockholder wishes. Few public companies have a block which controls more than %50 of the votes, but the Google founders still do.

I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[drewsome]

What do the people of China really gain if Google shuts down?

I believe much the same things were said about Coca-Cola and South Africa before divestment -- a series of actions which helped to bring down the apartheid government there.

Just a thought.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[Kuvagh]

"This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders." A couple of people have already retorted this statement, but I'd just like to mention that I hear this pretty often. As long as this is a popularly held view, we'll have an awful lot of ends-justify-the-means syndrome. I wonder about how many business students snicker during their ethics classes and how many simply have their ethics broken by the pressure of the greed of thousands.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[Ford Prefect]

Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

And on the other side, Google seems to be doing a very good job in getting people outside China to talk about Chinese censorship and the like. Whether you agree or disagree with Google's actions, they're definitely raising awareness of who they're dealing with.

Odds are You are worse then google.

[Anonymous Coward]

so many god damn hypocrites here. ohh google is making money in china! burn them! while i type this out on my made in china keyboard, attached to my made in china computer, wearing my made in china whatever the hell while listening to shit spewing from my made in china stero, paid for by supporting made in china equipment.

You think you're so noble trying to flame google over this. while you whisle dixie chicks songs and shop in wallmart.

"I really hoped they would be a good company"... so that somehow I could justify my missdeeds by saying hey I bought stock in google.

Just what the hell have you done to help the general populance of china today?

Anything? Ever? no? then shut the hell up.

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[slyborg]

The difference is that I didn't go around saying that I am better than others beforehand. If Google had a motto that said "Don't Be Poor" there would be no issue with their China policy. So Google should drop that whole patronizing shtick now that they are The Man and adopt a new motto like "Don't Be A Sucka" or "Don't Hate The Playas" or "Don't Block Our Ads", or "Don't Mind Us, We're Just Trying To Make A Buck".

That whole 'Don't Be Evil' thing was so pre-IPO. As a public company, Google will get more and more like every other large international corporation very rapidly. In five years they will operate no differently than any of their peers. I mean, they have Denny Hastert's son as a paid lobbyist in DC. Just waiting for the big RNC contribution (and slightly smaller DNC) campaign contribution in the fall congressional race.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=2129

P.S. The dixie chicks thing didn't make any damn sense.

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[dourk]

god damn I wish I could mod you up.

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[puppetman]

So you're the reason for 2.5% growth in the US trade deficit......

"the US also imported more goods from China, leading to an increased deficit of $17bn with that country alone."

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[Anonymous Coward]

Acctually I'm from Canada.

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I am definitely not a china lover here, I wonder what Congress would do if google started indexing information that the US governement found morally unacceptable (and there are some that have been blocked)? Just because it doesn't happen often here doesn't mean that it never does. Different countries, different moral standings. Judging a company by it's willingness to abide by the rules of a given country just shows your own ignorance as to how the world really works.

Re:Odds are You are worse then google.

[TheBogie]

At least I never hooked up a car battery to a Falun Gong priest's nuts. When Google cooperates with the chinese government, someone usually gets the Diehard treatment. I may be typing on a keyboard made in china, but no one's sack got electrocuted because of it.

I love it

[Se7enLC]

I love how we all see censorship as bad, and because Google is taking part in censorship we blame Google. We make no effort to blame the CHINESE GOVERNMENT for requiring that kind of censorship. Google does not exist to fight political battles over freedoms of people in China (although they do have a history of expanding into surprising new markets, I somehow feel that political picketing is not the next one).

Summary: HELLO, Google is not the one censoring the chinese people, CHINA is the one censoring them, Google is just doing what they are told by the government in the country they are operating in. Google may be all-powerful, but I don't think they are in a position to start a war against china by breaking their laws and standing by that treason.

Give them a break...

[Churla]

They seriously wrestled over this issue... On a big pile of money... with the cute girls the Chinese government sent over.

Who can blame them for this decision? sheesh

Or as a friend said "They're still abiding by the core company philosophy if by 'good' you mean a huge pile of money.. and 'evil' being a smaller pile of money. They are doing no evil"

The ability to simply redefine for yourself what words mean to make youself into an angel, Bill Clinton would be proud :)

Which Option would you go with?

[paladinwannabe2]

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? If Google walks away from China, the Chinese don't benefit- all that means that they need to use Bandu or Yahoo! search engines (which aren't open about the censorship like Google is, and help the government track and jail people). If I was Chinese I'd rather have Google.cn than use something I know is tracking all my seraches and giving the information to the Chinese Government.

Re:Which Option would you go with?

[indierockclimber]

Good point: Google may censor, but Yahoo will censor and report! Still, if Google didn't tout their own "do no evil" motto so flagrantly, they wouldn't be feeling this backlash now. I mean, when else have they been presented with such an opportunity to "do no evil" on such a huge scale like this? And to totally belly up at this first major obstacle? I have to say, had Google put their foot down and said "No" to the Chinese Government, I think a lot of people would've rallied behind them and it would've cemented them as a "do no evil" entity in the US... instead they are severely hurting their credibility.

big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

nice toknow that everyone is so concerned about china. dont you guys have no problems in life?

Re:big deal

[ip_freely_2000]

If you're going to make a commment like that, at least have the balls to NOT post as Anonymous Coward.

Quoth the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different....'
So what about rolling my shit up into little balls and eating them? That's different, right? Would that not be perfectly reasonable then?

Spineless, not evil?

[geoffrobinson]

If there is a cost to their beliefs, they won't stand by them.

This should show some the difference between a truly bad regime and the current American government, regarless of your beliefs of whether the American government violated privacy rights.

In other words

[d_54321]

Brin told a small group of handpicked journalists selected because they wouldn't trash them for this bullshit decision: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to aid a communist country in their fight to squash any dissent of the people. Say, OK, let's not be hypocritcal asshats... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now. I mean, cmon, is anyone is gonna use Google any less because of this? Shyeah right!'

Re:In other words

[sethstorm]

Note that anything like this, it's SOP for a Stanford educated person. They exclude people at first chance to manage situations like these to get a desirable result.

No, it's a bad thing

[bigmouth_strikes]

> Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

Not so. It is obliged to act in the interest of its shareholders, but 1) the law leave a lot of wiggle room when interpreting the common interest of the shareholders and 2) I'm sure there are shareholders that think 'do no evil' is a standard that should be upheld.

> with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese search traffic (Yahoo having been notably more cooperative with the People's Republic in quashing dissenting voices than Google ever was).

First, in what way has Google not been cooperative. Second, "everyone else does it" is a poor excuse for kids even. People, companies and countries are doing whatever they can get away with, that doesn't mean it's right and that they shouldn't be criticized for it.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer.

Google.com has been banned altogether.

> Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

True, although one must wonder whether the gov't is notified with IP:s and such of the searching persons. I hope not.

The "Do No Evil" theme is too susceptible to...

[GoldTeamRules]

...people passing judgement about every action Google makes. Obeying laws of the countries you are doing business in can certainly be defended as an honorable way to live the mantra "Do No Evil".

It is not the responsibility of Google to be a vehicle for political influence.

I think what Google is trying to accomplish with this theme is to state that they want to compete fairly (albeit, agressively and relentlessly) in any markets they choose to compete in. And, that they want to offer a product to customers that provides value.

Obviously, you can read anything you'd like into a simple statement such as "Do No Evil", but I think Slashdot spends way to much time analyzing every decision Google makes.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bsy_at_play]

yes. general consensus is needed for something like the sullivan principles to work.

A non-evil out

[grahamsz]

Why don't google release a google desktop that subverts the chinese firewall and routes data indirectly to their US servers.

I'm sure google have the resources and technical know-how to pull this off, and they have the market clout that they could actually get the application widely proliferated. That would fulfil the goal of developing google in China and at the same time actively work against the Chinese censorship policies.

If half the net users in China have an encrypting tool installed that bypasses the firewall then the authorities will struggle to do anything to them. The real political dissidents will be able to hide among the people who want to download foreign crap.

Re:A non-evil out

[idonthack]

Why don't google release a google desktop that subverts the chinese firewall and routes data indirectly to their US servers.

They'd be blocked. And if they're blocked, most of the population won't be able to get to them without using some sort of circumvention tool anyways.

I'm sure google have the resources and technical know-how to pull this off, and they have the market clout that they could actually get the application widely proliferated.

Of course they could develop it. But they don't have as much of an affect on the general population as you seem to be thinking.

That would fulfil the goal of developing google in China and at the same time actively work against the Chinese censorship policies.

Yes. If they could pull it off. But that is not their job, and China would be pissed off. And when China is mad, our government will tell google to back off.

If half the net users in China have an encrypting tool installed that bypasses the firewall then the authorities will struggle to do anything to them. The real political dissidents will be able to hide among the people who want to download foreign crap.

Would you really want to try that yourself? Do you remember what they do with political dissidents over there? They kill them. If everybody gets encryption tools and starts bypassing the firewalls, they'll take a few hints from the RIAA and start picking people at random.

Google does not want to start a civil war. Maybe if one got going some other way, they would help out. But right now, it is best for them to stay out of it.

Re:A non-evil out

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't google release a google desktop that subverts the chinese firewall and routes data indirectly to their US servers.

It'd be blocked. Or at the least, made illegal -- and you can imagine what fun it must be to try being a Chinese citizen and going against the Chinese government. It's not fun in America, and we're a "free" country!

You'd need a solution that's open-source, decentralized, and/or part of every webpage (or a sizeable percentage of them). If you have to install it, it's no good: nobody would want to be caught with it. If it's centralized, it's no good: they'll block it explicitly, or use political pressuring to quell it. Putting it on every webpage might be one way to go about it (but probably isn't the only way).

The point would have to be to tie non-censorship into *all* web usage. Make the two inseparable. Right now, "the web" to Chinese people simply means "the web, minus google.com", which is just one webpage. But if "being able to search anything" was a more integral part of what "the web" means, then you can't really censor it. Like having a "Southpark quotes" forum that didn't allow profanity, or a "Sex and the City" forum that forbade talk of bodily functions.

Do no evil, unless it makes money.

[mpcooke3]

Other slogans I could have suggested for companies at one time or other:

"The network is the computer, or possibly thats the PC" - SUN
"Invent or Copy" -HP
"Innovating for a Safer World, Fly Concorde" - BAE
"Good Food. Good Life. Kill Babies." - Nestle

"Beyond Petroleum" - BP
(unmodified, i just want to see it again because it's so hilarious)

Yahoo is less evil than Google

[PietjeJantje]

They are equally "evil", except that Google claims in their company motto they are not, which adds to the evilness. It is like MS having as a compay motto: "Open source - Lovin' it".

Stupid?

[C_Insano]

Where's the "stupid" tag that's on all other stories?

If you hate china so much...

[askreet]

Cmon' people -- if you don't like how china does things stop buying their products. You're supporting the chinese government every time you buy *anything*. :)

Family Friendly Prices thanks to Death Camp Labor

[gd23ka]

We've somehow gotten to used to the word "China" in our headlines to really see how preposterous this is. This is really outragerous because basically, they might as well be saying:

Google committed to Nazi Business Snowgen writes "Despite this week's earlier story that hinted Google may consider pulling out of Germany over the topic of censorship, Reuters is now quoting Sergey Brin as saying that 'Google Inc. is committed to doing business in Germany despite criticism the company has faced for abiding by Nazi censorship restrictions.'" More from the article: "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'." (btw whoever comes up with "I invoke Godwin's law"... Fuck you, okay ):



Okay. So we're not here into alternate reality stuff of the kind like what if we hadn't gone to war with Nazi Germany. Even though Brin is fabulating about "Alternative Paths" etc. However what we should really be into is the following:

The chinese governments and the chinese elites are not the kind of people we should aid.

1. They have killed twenty million of their citizens in their "culture revolution" alone.

2. They execute people after fifteen minutes in court and nowadays even for petty crimes such as theft. It used to be they did that in stadiums by shooting people. Nowadays they have execution vans manned by two policemen, one judge, one court clerk and the executioner.

3. They are underselling our businesses and crippling our economy. Even though most of the shit we get to buy at Walmart or Target is made in China, nobody here works for 15 cents/hour.

4. Most of the merchandise Cosco (Chinese Overseas Company) sells over here is made in Laogai prison camps were millions of people slave for free and don't even get those 15 cents an hour

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[ryen]

No.
Any business that directly portrays themselves as the company that can make money without doing evil should be expected to do just that.
They have insinuated, in their own right, a 'holier-than-thou' attitude themselves, now their ignorance of doing the right thing in China is contradicting and insulting.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

(a) honestly, can you find nothing more important to do with your life than rooting out tiny fragments of hypocrisy in others?

(b) there's easy cases to be made that some google is better than none, and I've seen many of those cases made by actual people in China, not self-righteous internet nerds.

(c) Google cannot be the Only Moral Company. Expecting them to be so is tantamount to expecting them to commit corporate suicide over a matter they are incapable of changing.

In short, grow up and learn to see the shades of grey.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

I think it's preposterous to ask them to hew to some sort of Holier-Than-Thou philosophy while the rest of the world rushes to do business with China.

Well, if their corporate mottos wasn't some "Holier-Than-Thou" crap I'd follow you on this.

As for the rest, sure it's important to "clean your own backyard" before being a critic of your neighbor but if everyone had the "the rest of the world is doing it" attitude nothing would change. People need to do what is right in their own eyes but you can't dismiss wrong doing simply because it's a popular trend.

I personally do not shop at WalMart, does this make it OK for me to bash Google a bit?

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

the point is, as 'bsyatplay' pointed out, that without a broad consensus, a google boycott of China is completely ineffective and serves no purpose other than to pacify idealistic bystanders.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[ryen]

(a) honestly, i can't.. we dont live in a free country because people like you chose to keep their mouths shut and take it in the...
(b) well.. lets hear some cases then! you're obviously the expert, or maybe you just play one on t.v.
(c) incapable of chaning? well for starters they could follow their original 'mantra' and not deal with communist censorship.. or they could just pull out now. they choose neither.

maybe you don't understand the real dangers of communists and their socio-political censorship on their citizens..

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

(a) and we don't live in a free country because people like you have plenty of spare time for fault-finding either.

(b) read the rest of the thread, there's several. The big one is 'which does more good: no google in china or some google in china? Is it better to refuse to be part of a corrupt system and try to act for change, or to simply refuse to acknowledge that the system exists?'

(c) if you honestly think that Google refusing to work with the Chinese will have any impact at all, you're either wildly overestimating Google's importance or wildly underestimating the inertia of the Chinese government. Or immensely naive.

The only reason anyone cares about this is googles 'do no evil' thing. No need to get up on the anticensorship high horse - every business in America is doing the exact same thing. If you want to affect change in China, the people you need to talk to are your elected officials, not Google.

I'll disagree, even more.

[khasim]

You are right regarding core morals and ethics. Once you've hit the bone, you can't cut any further. That doesn't mean that principles you are flexible on are not part of your ethical or moral structure.

There is an old joke that illustrates how you are wrong on that.

Guy: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Yes.
Guy: Would you sleep with me for a dollar?
Woman: No! What kind of woman do you think I am?
Guy: We've already established that. Now we're negotiating price.

The moral of that story is: You may be a high priced whore, but you are still a whore. Your ethics and morals are those of a whore.

Are you expendable? That's possible.

There is no "possible" to it. If you do not deliver, you will be replaced by someone who does deliver.

Again, reference the whore joke. Once you've sold yourself, it's over. You have no bargaining position other than how much money you want.

But i'll put it to you again (and again this requires some trust in Google), is it not better to know for yourself what China is doing? Again, if there's no way for them to be stopped? Disengagement is not an effective solution. It's true in politics, it's true in business, it's true in society, and i'd say it holds true here too.

How do you define "better"?

Is it "better" for Google if China can jail more "subversives"?
Is it "worse" for Google if China can jail more "subversives" ... but Google makes more money?

You ask whether it is "better" to know what China is doing. What interest ,aside from the money, does Google have in China? Google is not our government. Google is not anyone's government. If the money wasn't there, Google wouldn't be there.

"Disengagement" is an "effective solution" ... if the alternative is compromising your morals/ethics. Again, back to the whore joke. If you don't "disengage" and keep negotiating price until you both agree ... you're still a whore and you're a whore who's getting fucked for money.

Meanwhile, if you "disengage" at the beginning, you are not a whore.

Being a tool of an oppressive regime means that you are a tool of that regime.

If you're paid well, that makes you a highly paid tool of an oppressive regime.

If you're paid badly, that means you are a bargain for that oppressive regime.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[BoldAndBusted]

And I think it's preposterous to ask them to hew to some sort of Holier-Than-Thou philosophy while the rest of the world rushes to do business with China.

Only if they didn't state that they were going to hold themselves to a "holier-than-thou" philosophy, rather than waiting for someone else to ask them to... It would have been different if they never said "Don't be Evil", and happily did the greed thing like many other profit-chasing businesses, unencumbered by high morals. But, they said it, they made the edict, they enticed new employees with this philosophy, and so now we get to call them on their hypocrisy.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

This is asinine. So you're saying because they've done their best to not do evil, they should be penalized in the court of public opinion more than those who have made zero effort to do so?

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

The point is, as I pointed out, that it has to start somewhere. Not everyone is going to go over at once. Christ, why is this such a hard concept?

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Yeah, it has to start somewhere. And that somewhere is some form of agreement across a broad base of governmental organizations and private corporations that they won't do business with China. Otherwise Google is just tilting at windmills.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

Otherwise Google is just tilting at windmills.

Yeah, that's the way to think of it... I love defeatists. Google comes out gang busters with all this idealogy about the freedom of information but HELPING China censor their population is "just tilting at windmills"? Please.

Well, Google deserves it

[Sycraft-fu]

When you set a standard for yourself, you should not be supprised that people want to hold you to that standard. Google declared their motto was "Don't be evil." They were clearly going after people dislike for corperations like Microsoft that are willing to step on consumers a bit if it helps them make more money.

It's been a successful campaign too. Slashdotters have bought in to it, as has the media at large, making Google out to be a good, idealistic company that's more concerned with doing right than making money. Google was loving it.

However the downside to creating an image like that for yourself is you will be expected to live up to it in all occasions. If you don't, people will flame you in a major way. You are a hypocrite to them and they are mad.

I mean think of it on a personal level. If there's a guy who's alsows drunk, always getting in fights, in and out of jail and such, you have na expectation of him. If you see him slap his wife, you probably shrug it off. I mean that's what you expect out of that guy, right? He's a fucker. Back to jail again, big supprise. However what if instead of that guy, it's a pastor, one who vehemantly preaches non-violence in all situations, turn the other cheek and all that. Well you'll be outraged. How can this guy who says you should be non-violent up and hit his wife? BURN HIM!

I feel no sympathy for Google. They want the good guy image, but want to be able to do thigns that have some questionable ethics like most big companies. Sorry guys, can't do that. Even if it's not major, it will hurt your image. If you want to maintain the good guy image, you have to turn away from situations like that, even if it's expensive.

I'm not going to say they are wrong for choosing money over morals, corperations are largely amoral entities, but I'm not going to say we should give them a pass. You want to do shit like this? Fine, but don't expect me to view you as on the moral high ground if you do.

Money corrupts.

[/dev/trash]

Brin likes his hookers and that other dude his midgets.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Sorry, but I view the idea that google unilaterally declining to do business with the Chinese will have any effect on anything other than googles balance sheets as hopelessly naive. China doesn't care. Well, I take that back: MS and Yahoo would be overjoyed. If you'd like to put forth some kind of reasonable scenario to the contrary, I'm all ears. I'll just mention preemptively that "if google throws away billions in potential revenue, maybe other corporations will as well" doesn't really fall under the 'reasonable' category.

On the other hand, I view the idea that google could attempt lobby for change from inside as a reasonably pragmatic view, even if unlikely to produce large changes.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

On the other hand, I view the idea that google could attempt lobby for change from inside as a reasonably pragmatic view, even if unlikely to produce large changes.

What are the chances that the company that is HELPING China censor their peasants from the internet is going to do that? Call me naive but there is something that goes deeper than profit. If you don't feel that that's true and worth working towards I'm afraid we have little to discuss.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Oh, I see. You think that because Google is forced to obey Chinese law in order to do business there that they agree with it. As it turns out, that may actually not be the case, much as they may not have enjoyed turning over a bunch of search results to the US Justice Dept. In a similar vein, I don't agree with the laws regarding gun control, yet I obey them nonetheless. I'm sure you can name a few laws you find immoral but obey anyway as well.

No Power, No No-Evil

[microbee]

Why could Google claim it would do no evil? Because it knew it would be powerful and thus could afford to do it that way.

In other words, because it has all not money, it can talk about ethics. So why would it be surprising when Google decides to keep the business in China?

A company does not succeed because it's good. A company succeeds because it makes money.

Face it human. A company is a company. All of them make money.

If one day Google pulls out of China, the reason would still be money.

Just live with that.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[imgod2u]

(a) Yes....we do. One could even argue that there is an entire profession, nay, multiple professions, positions, both government appointed and not, social and political organizations, and just generally bored individuals spreading ideas on some form of distributed electronic medium devoted to it. I suppose they're just wasting their time though...
(b) A more accurate assessment would be, is it better to refuse to work with an oppressive organization, and refuse services which make life more convenient for the Chinese people, or aid an oppressive government economically (through taxes on profit, and a precedence I might add). Companies like MSN and Yahoo have done a greater deal of harm simply because they're willing to comply with the Chinese government. The choice, therefore, becomes much harder for other companies (Google, for instance) to refuse service to China. If Google goes in, it further adds to this precedence of cooperation with an oppressive regime, which is probably the most harmful aspect of this.
(c) Just because one does not have influence does not make one's actions any more or less wrong. The man who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square probably could not have made much of a difference, does not mean that his actions were less morally admirable. Practically speaking, I would argue that Google, being one of the most successful companies on the Internet, does indeed hold quite a bit of influence. The profits generated from business in China adds further to the government's income in taxes, as well as further adds to the precedence of cooperation with that oppressive regime.

One of the responsibilities of those with clout (not neccessarily just a company), particularly one who has elevated themselves to the "holier-than-thou" attitude that Google has, is to set examples for others.

The reason people care about this, is because Google, besides the company, represented an ideal that business and moral fortitude need not be separate. And considering the amount of power corporations have over policy, and various aspects of life in general, I do not think such an expectation of these companies is out of the question.

As for change in China, as I've said before, moral principles are not to be upheld or not based solely on whether they will affect change. They are upheld by fact that they are principles. If you could selectively choose when to follow them or not, they would not be principles.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[imgod2u]

The problem with that analogy is that one cannot avoid following a law without hard consequences if one remains to be a citizen of said country. Google is perfectly capable of not cooperating with China and not suffer punishment other than gaining less profit. There is also the fact that citizenship implies an agreement to follow all laws and that desires to change those laws will be made via a process (in the case of the US, a democratic policy). Google has no such responsibility for following Chinese law.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[imgod2u]

*That* is asinine. It's not that they've done their best not to do evil, they've *stated* that they will *do no evil*. That *means* zero.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Sure, the analogy isn't perfect. I was just pointing out that simply because Google chooses to do business in China does not imply that they enjoy being party to censorship, which is what eastcoasts last post implied.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Ok. So I guess your answer to my rhetorical question is 'yes'?

Hey, asshole:

[alfs boner]

Google has a legal obligation to behave in a manner dictated to it by the voting shareholders. While this is usually a directive to make money, it could be other things. It just so happens that Page and Brin have 66.2 percent of the voting power. So they can actually do whatever they want to do. THEY are the final word on China or not, so you can point the finger directly at them.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

You're right. Embargoes have simply worked SO WELL historically.

As far as staying out of China commercially, the cat's out of the bag, and was so before google was even a corporate entity. Google can be pragmatic about it, or they can be martyrs. I'll let you figure out which I think is better for the Chinese people, which is really who we're concerned with in the long run, right?

Reuters FUD-packing the Google China Story

[Bushido Hacks]

In the same spirit as CNN stating that the construction beam that fell in a construction site in near the Capitol building in washington last month (reported by their competitors at ABCNews) was someone shooting at the Capitol building, Reuters decides to squirt mustard all over this story.

Google is saying "Zai jian" ("Good bye" in Mandarin Chinese) to the Chinese.

Hand picked media audience the Stanford way?

[sethstorm]

"Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."

Easy to get a captive audience that reflects only your opinion, and wont ask any hard questions. Then again, it's to be expected from these Stanfordites.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

IMHO their CHOICE to do business with the Chinese says loud and clear their ill-regard for the subjects of China. The choice was theirs and it was made.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

I guess I'm still not clear on how Google not doing business in China helps whoever the Chinese equivalent of John Q. Public is. In my eyes, there are two realistic scenarios: one scenario is Google stays away and in their place we have MSN and Yahoo. I don't really see any difference there. The other scenario is Google goes and, hopefully, actively tries to change things. I don't see a lot of difference there, but I seee some.

Again, I'd love to hear any realistic scenarios where Google staying away helps anyone but Googles competitors.

Purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

This story does one thing that is false. By implication it pretends that the west does not have censorship. This is completely false. We have as much censorship as the Chinese. We just do it more stealthily here.

Gmail also blocked, but why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've sent a couple pings into China about the Google.com blackout, and I've heard that Gmail is also affected. One friend reports only being able to log on internmittently and at great inconvenience. While in China earlier this year, I also experienced a one or two-day Google blackout on March 14, which was possibly a test run.

Does anyone know what the tech issues are here - are Google and Gmail linked so closely that blocking one blocks the other?

I'll take your 'fuck you'

[themusicgod1]

...and godwin's law takes winkydink in for the win.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

I'd love to see how their contributing to China's agenda is going to help anyone. You're the one not seeing clearly.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

I'd love to see how their contributing to China's agenda is going to help anyone.

Say you're a Chinese programmer living in Shanghai, and your task for the day is to figure out how to write an anonymous closure in Javascript. Is being able to access google.com helpful or no?

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

supporting the chinese and their government in this case is not helpful. no. get it through your head; in no way do i find helping a government that kills their people for "crimes" like speaking out against the government as justifiable. i don't care if yahoo or msn does it, that doesn't make it right. now, unless you can stop your one trick pony show don't bother me with the whole "but someone's going to make money". someone is going to kill an old lady tonight and steal the 10 dollars of bingo money from her purse too, that doesn't mean it's ok to do it.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

everything in life involves tradeoffs. I obviously don't agree with China's censorship policy, but I am capable of viewing the world in more than a simplistic black-and-white, right-and-wrong view. There are degrees of good and degrees of evil, and I obviously view Googles presence in China as a net gain.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

I am capable of viewing the world in more than a simplistic black-and-white, right-and-wrong view.

I am glad that murdering citizens over voicing disagreement with their government is such a complex issue for you. Sadly, to my so simple brain it sounds like an unjustified move by the cowardly. Let's just hope someday we will not have to live up to these high standards here too.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

China will do that with or without googles help. In the meantime, perhaps googles presence in China can actually do some good.

Not quite what i was suggesting

[grahamsz]

They could create a google desktop search tool, with "High Availability" technology. It could simply route requests to google.cn. If that was down it would try google US, google UK... and eventually fall back on some anonymous network of proxies.

They could almost certainly get the product widely disseminated, then close up shop in China and people who had teh tool installed would still be able to get google. Lots of everyday users in China would still be able to access google and they'd have *some* safety in numbers.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

China will do that with or without googles help.

As I said before, someone will be murdered and robbed tonight, it doesn't make it justifiable to be a party to it.

In the meantime, perhaps googles presence in China can actually do some good.

I'd like to think this is true but given remarks from Google's talking heads Ican't help but feel otherwise.

Again, thanks for the tons of insight that my simple brain could not possibly comprehend. Maybe it will make me into a better subject, err... citizen.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[bunions]

Again, thanks for the tons of insight that my simple brain could not possibly comprehend. Maybe it will make me into a better subject, err... citizen.

and thank you for the fascinating view into a universe where actions and their implications are direct, clean and binary.

Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin

[east coast]

and thank you for the fascinating view into a universe where actions and their implications are direct, clean and binary.

Yeah, I do see murder as murder. Sorry.