Chinese Professor Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Exclusion

Techdirt points out that while there have been many lawsuits over someone's Google-rank, a Chinese professor is suing Google and Yahoo for removing all mention of him in China. "Google and Yahoo, of course, have agreed to play by local rules in China, upsetting many. Legally, it would seem like this suit has little chance of success — but I doubt that he cares about the legal result. What this actually does is to call attention to his plight — and on that front, it's clearly a successful strategy."

Comments

Communist China != Soviet Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because as we all know...

Drum roll...

Wait for it...

In Soviet Russia, search engine sues YOU!

Thank you everybody.

Re:Communist China != Soviet Russia

[noz]

Thank you everybody.

Are you here all week?

Re:Communist China != Soviet Russia

[unitron]

Are you here all week?

That depends on how many people try the veal.

Just write a check

[erick99]

Maybe Google should buy China (seeing how MS is buy Yahoo). -erick http://www.yourfavoritegadgets.com/

Re:Just write a check

[Vectronic]

Right... and then I suppose Google can ship them back over here on boats right?... and make them pick results out of their field of cached web pages right?...

Re:Just write a check

[erick99]

It's okay. I am thinking that Google's current cash on hand, about 6B, is not enough to purchase China. They could put it on layaway though . . . -erick99 http://www.yourfavoritegadgets.com/

Re:Just write a check

[TapeCutter]

If anyone is doing the buying it will be China. They just plonked down $14B for 9% of Rio Tinto to scuttle a merger with BHP. Communists promoting competition via the stockmarket, what next? - cats sleeping with dogs?

Blogvertisement.

[palegray.net]

The full article is here. Unless you just want to hook this guy up with ad revenue instead of getting the full story, of course.

Re:Blogvertisement.

[flyingsquid]

That's funny, I searched for the story using Yahoo and couldn't find any mention of it.

Re:Blogvertisement.

[palegray.net]

What's funny is that entering the text "dissident Chinese professor" into MSN Search shows the article as the first result.

Re:Blogvertisement.

[rastoboy29]

hehehe so naive...as if anyone here actually reads the articles.

Gee..

[deepershade]

Part of me is angered by this. A search engines job is to list sites for search. Nothing more. It's not their job to decide what sites I shouldn't have access to, that's mine (and possibly some major ISP's heh). Another part realises that if they don't do what China says, the firewall blocks access to their search engine and harms millions of Chinese citizens. When you've got two demons on either side of you, and no other way to go, how can you not do evil?

Re:Gee..

[mrxak]

A search engine's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Nothing more. It's their job to get as large a market share as possible, so that's why they do what they need to do to keep China from blocking their site. We don't have to like it, but don't confuse what Google's actual responsibility is.

Re:Gee..

[LurkerXXX]

If China blocks your engine, the Chinese government is the one doing the evil. You aren't.

When you filter content to keep secret anything a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to see, in order to pacify the government and make money from the countries business, you are doing evil.

It's real simple.

Re:Gee..

[pclminion]

Their job is to do whatever the hell they want to do. If enough people don't like it, they'll go away, and a company will die. But don't think for a second that you can demand any company to do what you think "their job" is.

Re:Gee..

[mrxak]

Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

Re:Gee..

[palegray.net]

The two terms are almost interchangeable. The leading alternative to Google in China is Baidu.com (Wikipedia article), which really acts as little more than a state-sanctioned portal.

Re:Gee..

[Bloodoflethe]

And this is why they should never have gone public. I don't have anything against them, but they are stupid panicky herd animals, as a whole, who don't care where the revenue comes from.

Re:Gee..

[roggg]

A search engine's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Nothing more. It's their job to get as large a market share as possible, so that's why they do what they need to do to keep China from blocking their site. We don't have to like it, but don't confuse what Google's actual responsibility is. Search engines don't have shareholders...companies do. A search engine's job is to search. A company's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Don't confuse the two. The search service that google provides to users enables them to derive ad revenue and thus profits for shareholders. Without the search service and other services they provide to users, they are nothing.

Re:Gee..

[Vectronic]

No your wrong, you took it out of context...

"A search engines job"

Its the company who developes/maintains the search engine who's job is to make a profit, a search engine simply lists links to all relavant web pages it finds to the search query.

Although that developer does intrinsicly have the right to edit the method that the search engine uses to find results, a search engine is incapable of making a profit. :P although possibly a prophet...

Im not quite as pissed as this guy, but some of you dont realize that this isnt just a Chinese problem, or "something thats happening in another country, so what whers the TV remote?"... Google.com and Google.ca also limit the search results now thanx to DMCA among other things, which I dunno about you, but that angers me a lot, because it doesnt just warn you about "Illegal Content" it just removes all reference to the site that contaisn the content, and says "We removed stuff" never saying what they removed.

And who knows what else they remove that they dont notify you about.

Re:Gee..

[Original Replica]

how can you not do evil?

Well for starters, Google could very publicly protract this case for as long as possible. They could do lip service to the PRC while making sure that Guo Quan gets as much airtime and pundit discussion as possible. Google is in a tight spot in China, as are most of the Chinese. Simply by being there to be sued they have done more to illuminate this man's plight then they could have every done if they did no business with the PRC at all. Now they just have to take this opportunity and use it to do some good.

Re:Gee..

[ljgshkg]

Don't be purist. What's better is better. If Google doesn't do the filtering, people in China will have one less choice, and the communists have one less engine to monitor.

Re:Gee..

[Nemilar]

I agree and disagree, but largely on semantics.

A search engine's job is to provide you with the best results possible for your query. By removing results, the search engine is failing to perform its function to the best of its ability.

A cooperation's job is to earn as much money as possible for its shareholders. In this particular case, we have a company with an obligation to its shareholders to produce as much profit as possible. China is a huge market - Google can't not participate in it, that would be neglecting its responsibility to its shareholders. But since Google is in the search business, and China has certain rules about information exchange, Google has no choice but to cripple its product in order to maximize profits.

This is yet another example of government regulation lowering the value of a product. But this time, it's in China, and we can all look at how lucky we have it that all Google has to worry about in the US is the DMCA, instead of outright censorship of political and religious decent.

Re:Gee..

[LurkerXXX]

I don't see how an independent one is any better if it is doing the filtering the Chinese government wants.

With either one, the only hope of the Chinese citizen truth is to find an open proxy to connect to a REAL search engine.

Re:Gee..

[qortra]

But Google, as a company, has made promises to its shareholders and patrons. Don't you think that many people who own shares of Google do so under the assumption that they are not evil? You assume that the primary responsibility of a company to its shareholder is financial, and it is 99.9% of the time, but it is possible for a large group of shareholders to unite and declare other simultaneous objectives for the company.

Re:Gee..

[deepershade]

But my point was that no everything negative to about the Chinese government is filtered, they can't hit it all, so by towing the line to an extent, they're allowing millions of citizens access to information which may shed some light on the actions of their own government. If they're Firewalled, then those citizens see nothing. I personally don't like the filtering, I was merely trying to speak from a Devil's Advocate position.

Re:Gee..

[LurkerXXX]

The topic is about Yahoo, but anyhow...

Choice between a filtered search engine and a filtered search engine isn't a real choice about where to get truthful information. My concern isn't for the amount of workload added to the Chinese government. It's about there being a real search engine out there for them to get good information at if they can find a proxy or some hole through the firewall. If Yahoo (and Google) are willing to filter for the Chinese government to make money out of their market, what exactly is their line, and how do you know they aren't willing to (or aren't already) doing it for the Mideast, countries in the EU, or in the good 'ol USA if the Bush (or other fascist) administration decide they want to do it as well?

Sorry to be a purist about ethics, but that's just the way I roll.

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

But don't think for a second that you can demand any company to do what you think "their job" is.

If I am a paying customer, it is absolutely my right to demand that the company does what I think "their job" is. As long as I am handing it money, it is the company's job to cater to me. If it ceases doing so, the consequence may be that I cease doing business with it. This isn't any different from my boss telling me to do something, and potentially halt my paychecks if I decide not to comply.

Similarly, if I am a shareholder, I own part of the company, and have every right to tell them what they should do. Depending on the number of shares I have, I may have even more power than I would as a customer.

That's beside the point, though, for two main reasons:

• With Google (and any search engine), we are not customers, so my arguments don't apply here. I only mentioned them because you seem to imply that no one ever has the right to boss a corporation around, which is patently false.
• The purpose behind the lawsuit, as the article implies, is probably to raise awareness. The guy is a revolutionary within China that is pushing for a more democratic government. He could use all the publicity he can get. This lawsuit works beautifully to get his name recognized, get his cause recognized, and get China's censorship tactics recognized. In this goal, the lawsuit works beautifully.

Re:Gee..

[maxume]

The last time I checked, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin and Larry Page owned more than 50% of voting shares in Google, making it so that they always constitute the largest group of shareholders that might have some objective or another, so it doesn't really matter what anybody else thinks, in terms of responsibility to shareholders.

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

But Google, as a company, has made promises to its shareholders and patrons. Don't you think that many people who own shares of Google do so under the assumption that they are not evil?

In fact, as an investor in a publicly traded company, you are supposed to be able to rely on the public statements of the company. So, having declared that Google's policy is "Don't be evil", if in fact they are acting that way, one of the army of class-action securities lawyers will sue them for violating SEC rules.

Would be a funny lawsuit though - I don't think "evil" has a legal definition!

Re:Gee..

[maxume]

That would have been way more insightful had you emphasized corporation.

A cooperation may not even have shareholders.

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever considered the possibility of "better" for reasons other than political ones?

In United States, we can probably argue that Google and other search engines, say MSN search, are equally unfiltered by government. Why do many people prefer Google then?

Filtered Google in China is better than a government-owned search engine because it's better at searching the Internet. It finds what people want. And just to exaggerate it a bit using your example -- how do you think an ordinary Chinese citizen would find the information about open proxy on Internet?

Re:Gee..

[shutdown -p now]

It's like saying that helping torture a man is better than not doing so, because when you're the torturer, you can go easier on the victim than the other, "evil" guy would have done.

Re:Gee..

[readin]

The primary purpose of anything that is owned is to serve the owners. A corporation is owned by shareholders making its purpose to serve the owners. Making money for them is usually the purpose, but not always and not only. Perhaps some owners of Google don't want their company to make money for them if it means helping to prop up a corrupt regime. Google would serve those owners better by finding other ways to make money. There is more to life than money. Even shareholders know that.

Re:Gee..

[readin]

Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

If Baidu were the only search engine permitted, then the Chinese people would wonder why and would know not to trust the results. But Google is the same search engine people in the free countries use. Why shouldn't they trust it? After some use even the disclaimer starts to wear thin.

A little information is better than no information when that little bit of information serves to undermine the lies people are hearing, not when that little information is selected to reinforce the lies.

Re:Gee..

[pedantic bore]

I suppose it's possible, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. The primary responsibility of a company to its shareholders is financial, pure and simple (and legally defined).

If Google or Yahoo had incorporated as non-profits, I might have been surprised. As is, picture me yawning.

Re:Gee..

[CodeBuster]

When you've got two demons on either side of you, and no other way to go, how can you not do evil? It is unavoidable in the case of Google or any other corporation. That is why it makes no sense, at least in my estimation, for people to form attachments to corporations or believe them when they talk about their "corporate conscience" or how they promise that they will not do evil things. Here is an important tidbit for everyone who is surprised by the actions taken by Google, or indeed any other corporation. Corporations exist to maximize profit for their owners period...that is it and that is all. They will very rarely come out and just say this of course, but it remains true none the less. Once you understand why corporations exist and view their actions through that prism then what they do usually, although not always, makes sense. There are limits of course, that is why we have and should have the government, to enforce the rules of the game, but we should not fault the corporations for intelligent play within the rules, however underhanded and sneaky we believe that play to be. If you don't like this then work to change the rules (i.e. the laws), but always remember that in other countries it is their rules not yours, it is their country after all. The job of Google is whatever they decide their job is and their customers can decide to either use their services or not, that is what it means to have a free market.

Re:Gee..

[jesdynf]

Given that the state is telling the "independent" search engine how to run, I see no distinction between the two terms you compare.

Re:Gee..

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Yes, I do think that. Because it's well-known that self-censorship tends to be more thorough than external censorship.

Right now, the Chinese government can keep their restrictions very vague, and companies like Google will be forced to either filter anything that MIGHT piss off the Chinese government or else risk getting in big legal trouble.

If it was the actual government doing the filtering, it would be known exactly what the government didn't want people to know (not what Google thought the government didn't want people to know). They'd be under scrutiny for each term they blacklisted. And most importantly, internet users would be staring their oppression in the face, rather than having it hidden behind a shiny Google facade.

Re:Gee..

[ladoga]

Google has no choice but to cripple its product in order to maximize profits.

...And they help oppressive government to break human rights. Where is the line drawn, I might ask? As long as it's profitable, is it lawful for US based corporation to help in say torturing and murdering human beings?

There is always a choice.

Re:Gee..

[Moderatbastard]

Search engines don't have shareholders...companies do.

If there's a point in there (apart from pedantically literal nitpicking) would you kindly repost it with the relevant portion marked in some way, because I for one missed it.

kthxbye.

Re:Gee..

[ladoga]

Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

I can't believe such comments are modded Insightful.

That's a really slippery slope to go. For Chinese people it must look (rightly so) that Google and Yahoo are accepting censorship practices of their goverment. It makes censorship normal, something to expect, instead of something one should oppose. If there was no one bandwagoning their goverment in this censorship issue, pressure would be much harder on their goverment to stop it. Actually it goes down to individual level. As long as there is people taking part in this kind of shit "for greater good" or "lesser evil" it will go on and on as these people are the opressors.

PS. I'd guess that Chinese public is just as much limited in seeing the truth with filtered Google or local search engine. But that's beside the point.

Re:Gee..

[Nemilar]

Haha, nice catch... as I was typing that, I spelled it wrong at first, went back, added an "o" and said to myself, "yeah, sure, that looks like a word, let's go with it." Guess the preview button is there for a reason. (Not hitting it in 3, 2, 1...)

Re:Gee..

[pembo13]

What about Google maps and the redacted areas of places the USA considers sensitive?

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a google shareholder you may sell your share freely, nobody's holding you back. If you're not you may buy some share first then sell them.

Re:Gee..

[shentino]

Not if the reason you're filtering content is because a big bad government agent has a gun to your head and is COERCING you to do so.

China has a gun to Google's head by forcing it to play by chinese rules if it doesn't want to get blocked.

Why bash google? They are being held hostage, and they actually can't do much better than they already are. Not successfully anyway, because too much freedom would bring down chinese block-hammers raining down like cats and dogs.

Re:Gee..

[aeoo]

> A search engine's job is to make profit for their shareholders.

No, that's not its job. There are things in life higher than profits for shareholders.

FUCK YOU AND THOSE LIKE YOU.

Stop spreading this retarded meme.

Re:Gee..

[mrxak]

It's not a meme, it's an economic fact. Swearing at me won't change that.

Re:Gee..

[CristalShandaLear]

Re:Gee.. (Score:4, Insightful)
by mrxak (727974) on Friday February 08, @01:29PM (#22351710)
Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

Yes, I do.

I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your statement that "a little truth is better than no truth." Having read and discussed this issue with people who live under censorship, people easily recognize and disregard outright propaganda by their government.

The state of American media today is pretty much based on your precept. The media has been reduced to simply reporting basic facts cannot be disputed. Those facts that can be disputed or fudged are done so blatantly. And furthermore, they will put on two people who interpret those facts in a completely disparate manner. This is called fair and balanced reporting.

However when the grain of truth given to people serves only to give credibility to a lie, there is a grave danger in this type of "knowledge". It merely gives people the illusion that they are being given information when in reality they are being merely informed of what took place and are commanded to take on positions out of a few choices when all of the choices presented may be false.

The entire process is designed for subterfuge and confusion. This is the truth of not only FOX News but of nearly every single broadcaster we watch. The tide is subtly turning, but not nearly as fast as it turned toward the sort of fascism you are mildly sanctioning.

This is the sort of thing that leads people to believe that "There's really no difference between the Presidential candidates. They're all politicians." There is a grain of truth to that statement. All the candidates are politicians. But there are differences between them and however slight, those differences may easily be the difference between liberty and tyranny; the people being fed truth or lies.

Re:Gee..

[BeanThere]

You've obviously never lived under a fascist government if you think the Chinese would 'wonder why and would know not to trust the results' ... how naive, sorry. I've lived through apartheid South Africa where basically ALL media was very heavily controlled and limited by the government, for decades all we saw was some limited government propaganda, and guess what, not only do people (even educated people) almost universally believe it (because it's all they see), they're *happier* that way, *blissfully* unaware of all the actual problems simmering beneath the surface and the people getting "disappeared" and so on. Even today ask any white South African how much they know about apartheid, they are still mostly clueless --- all we knew was fun in the sun and braais (barbecues) and what happy innocent times those 'were'. Go to any such country (e.g. Cuba) and you'll find the same.

Re:Gee..

[aeoo]

It's not an economic fact. Money is not the goal. Profit is not the goal. The reason people trade is to improve the quality of life and not just to get lots of profits. If profit comes at the expense of the quality of life, then the trade that resulted in it has the opposite of intended effect.

Money is not god, not even in economics.

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, that would just be the end of Google if China blocked them wouldn't it?

And if I'm selling lead tainted toys because the Chinese government wants me to buy paint from their suppliers, I guess I'll just go ahead and buy them and poison kids, because that's the only way I can make money from the Chinese. Oh well. They made me.

Re:Gee..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, one more thing to add on to that post,

Only making money from other countries instead to protect the kids, well, that's just unthinkable.

Re:Gee..

[readin]

I did live in a formerly authoritarian country, and discovered an old American dictionary where the offensive parts had very carefully had paper glued over them. Surely that was noticeable. Of course if the American publisher had simply published a version for that country that left out the offensive parts, the censorship wouldn't have been noticeable.

But even if the government had done a better job, there still would be people who travel and other ways of getting access to foreign materials.

Perhaps you were young at the time you were living in South Africa. But even if you weren't, times have changed. China has lots of contact with the outside world; the government can't keep everything out.

But if the government co-opts the outside world into helping tell the same lies, or at least to help in keeping the truth away, what good does globalization do the Chinese people in learning the truth? They can't trust their own government and their own media; where can the learn if they can't trust foreign sources either? If foreign sources are just as dishonest and reinforce the government's lies, why shouldn't the Chinese come to believe them and distrust any foreign sources that disagree?

Re:Gee..

[Boronx]

Do you think it's better for the Chinese people to see Western companies collaborate and legitimize oppression from their government than to see such censorship denounced and shunned by the wider world?

Re:Gee..

[BeanThere]

I think you give people more credit than they're due. It's true that some information always filters in, but so little that it's effectively negligible. Most people couldn't give a crap about learning anything about the world they live in, they want to live in bubbles of ignorance. My ex is Chinese and has family in China and who've moved in and out of China etc., and from everything I heard over the years, it's clear the masses are mostly highly 'brainwashed' into being pro-Chinese-government, very jingoistic and nationalist etc., which makes those so-called "truths" that might "filter" in look to be the 'lies'.

I still live in SA, by the way, always have, and am in my thirties now, and I guarantee you, the vast majority of whites (of any age) were always and remain not only oblivious and clueless, but *deliberately* so, they don't even want to hear the truth. People just don't give a toss, really. They care about banal entertainment, they care about booze, they care about having fun, they don't want to be bothered with that irritatingly gloomy thing called "reality". I believe this is a global, universal trait. Put some happy crap on the news and TV and people are more than glad to suck it up, as long as you don't mess with their partying and fun and rain on their parade with reality. Only the Boers have something of a clue, and only some of them. But try mention names like, say, Mxenge, or Vlakplaas, or whatever, people will get a glazed semi-irritated look and say 'WTF', grab a beer and go watch the rugby.

Even when people 'realise' things are being censored, most don't care to even want to find out more. As long as the sun keeps coming up each morning, and their house and local pub/bar are still there, and they get their paycheck at the end of the month, that's all they need/want to know.

Maybe I've just misplaced my rose-coloured glasses for the moment, but honestly, nobody actually cares about 'the truth'. And our Western notions of liberty are so abstract and foreign to other cultures that it's a non-starter.

Globalisation and technology will have negligible effect on ideals of freedom in China, I am convinced of that. True we didn't have Internet in those bad old apartheid days. But in spite of the appearance of it being difficult to control information, technology actually allows information to be controlled HIGHLY effectively, especially when people don't care (SA has very few global Internet connection points; replicating the 'great firewall' would be a breeze). The Chinese government don't care if a few ideas get in 'here and there', it'll make no difference to the masses. China will remain a repressive nationalist proud state for a very long time, and its booming economy will only reinforce its own notions of self-greatness. Once China becomes powerful and independent enough, it will become imperialist and attempt to expand and assert its rightful superior standing globally, as the West once did not long ago. They're just waiting for the day. We can only hope there remains a global 'balance of power' to keep them in check.

China is prospering economically; the massive boom and increasing prosperity is hardly going to make them say "our government is doing something wrong". QUITE the opposite.

Re:Gee..

[BeanThere]

The thing is, most people rationalise censorship even when they encounter it, either because they don't care terribly much and just want to live their lives or because they're just too powerless to do anything about it anyway. Of course we knew all our movies got censored/cut (I remember that even as a child), of course many vaguely realised the TV news was a government mouthpiece, but it doesn't do/help much to the man on the street to be aware of that. And it's so easy to rationalise or believe the official line --- in our case, the government was for example protecting us against "terrorists" and the 'swart gevaar' ('black danger') and all that, which probably seemed believably enough to many, and in any case, most people are just trying to earn a living and don't exactly have time to go double-check every news story. And day in day out it's the same sort of thing, so 'why bother'.

Re:Gee..

[MojoStan]

A search engine's job is to provide you with the best results possible for your query. By removing results, the search engine is failing to perform its function to the best of its ability. A search engine is also expected to have an option to filter its results (especially if their kids use the same computer). Since China treats its citizens like children, Google is (in screwed-up way) performing its function.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I just hate the restrictions the Chinese government puts on its citizens and I hate Googles apparent dilemma: filter results in China or don't serve China at all.

Re:Gee..

[rtb61]

I have got to say it, you are an idiot. A search engine's job is to find the most relevant web pages for the person using the search engines, fail in that, and they are making no money for it's shareholders.

When companies forget that their first responsibility is to their customers and their second responsibility is to their staff and their last responsibility it to their shareholders, they die, fail in the first two and there is absolutely no chance the third will stand a chance.

Now of course we have the individuals at those companies, the people making those decisions, their main responsibilities are, family, friends, neighbours and oddly enough freedom and democracy. When they sell those out for short term profits, when they abandon the principles of freedom and democracy to pander to autocracies and to bloat their profit margins, they a quislings, they are traitors, basically they are sociopaths and belong in a padded cell where they can no longer put their own greed above the values of the rest of society.

What I don't understand and never will, is how anybody can accept, that becoming a corporate executive or the member of the board of a corporation abrogates from all normal human morals and values. Perhaps it is time to severely limit and curtail the scope and activity of corporations in modern societies.

Re:Gee..

[noz]

Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed!
Michael: Oh? Who's being naive, Kay?

Re:Gee..

[shentino]

Er, not a good analogy.

It would be a better one if you were being forced not to sell toys in china because you won't use their suppliers.

The problem is google being forced out of a very lucrative market by an overbearing government on grounds of conscience. It bothers me that there are companies out there who have no qualms about snuggling up with chinese politicians.

And unlike lead-tainted toys, having a censored search in china is better than having none at all. At least china isn't making google lace it with chinese propaganda. Omission of a good is not introduction of a bad. Lead hurts if it's added, whereas a filtered search is better than the status quo.

The summary is basically the article...it's so..

[iknownuttin]

short.

To quote Nelson: "Ha ha!"

You can't win Google and Yahoo! when you play by evil rules. China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people and ideas. Kudos for trying to do business with them and it may help the Chinese people, but when you cater to the evil, you will get bit in the ass.

Link to real article

[powerlinekid]

Heres a link to the real article so that you don't have to visit TechDirt's crappy blog.
Times Online

Re:Link to real article

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason they link to the blog instead of the real article is so they don't have to write their own summary. They can just copy the text from the blog and cite them for it.

Re:Link to real article

[esocid]

There was already a post linking to the article at the Times Online. Seems redundant to me.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[mrxak]

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it, eventually as the middle class grows it forces reform. Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life. While Google is being a party to the state-censorship in China, remember that it's really the Chinese government at fault, and overall Google will have done more good than harm.

He will be excluded (not virtually)

[tsbiscaro]

Probably China will "exclude" this guy anyway. For real.

Ah, the joys of communism...

Re:He will be excluded (not virtually)

[Bloodoflethe]

Communism =/= Bad. Communism = Bad Design. Communism, by design, relies on the assumption that people are basically hard-working and willing to work for the common good. When you try to make it work, you realize that people aren't like that. Then you try to force it work and you end up employing a horribly tight grip to keep your government stable. In small, isolated communities, communism can actually work fairly well. But then, there is no real diffusion of responsibility in that kind of situation. Everyone has a job to do, and everyone does it by necessity.

Re:He will be excluded (not virtually)

[Anonymous Coward]

well put.

whether or not they're communist (little 'c') is irrelevant in a discussion like this one. it's not communism behind the censorship, it's fascism. the two are very different.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[palegray.net]

The summary is the article. Here's the real article, instead of TechDirt's blogvertisement.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Stanistani]

"Mr Guo did not mince words in his open letter. "To make money, Google has become a servile Pekinese dog wagging its tail at the heels of the Chinese communists," he wrote."

Kind of says it all, doesn't it?

Professa

[davidsyes]

Non-Grada?

Incorrect

[geekoid]

A search engines job is to search for things.

Google does ahve a responsibility, as does everybody. What they are doing is wrong, and to think the Chinese government could actually block them is laughable.

You no, they could remove their servers from china and distribute a tool that helps people get around blocks.

Re:Incorrect

[jandrese]

Uh, before Google agreed with the horrible Chinese policy they WERE blocked by the great firewall. Not consistently mind you, but enough that Chinese users flocked to the government run search engine instead. As far as I know, Google still has a minority share in China thanks to those shenanigans.

Re:Incorrect

[flyingsquid]

A couple years ago, my father used a phrase that struck me, the phrase "good corporate citizen". It's the idea that beyond just turning a profit, a corporation has the obligation to make sure it's conduct has a positive influence on it's community, just like you have an obligation to make sure that you're a good citizen. It struck me as being a sort of noble idea (my father is a small business owner, and I'd like to think that's what he's trying to be) and one that seems quaint and outdated in today's world where the bottom line is the last word.

American society is so self-centered: we spend so much effort on looking out for ourselves, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the corporation, and not enough on making sure that we're looking out for our friends, family, neighbors, and country. Google's not perfect, and I'm not sure I like their approach to dealing with China, but I think that their "don't be evil" philosophy is a refreshing change from the downright predatory practices of many companies. At least they're making an effort.

Re:Incorrect

[geekoid]

So they caved to get in.

Still would ahve been better to distribute tools to get around it. Of course, if the corporations would start to apply real pressure for change to countries that want their business, that would help as well.

Re:Incorrect

[syousef]

American society is so self-centered: we spend so much effort on looking out for ourselves, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the corporation, and not enough on making sure that we're looking out for our friends, family, neighbors, and country.

Sure there's a lot of scum who shouldn't breed out there who are more interested in tv/playstation/drugs/booze/hoookers to be decent human beings.

There are also mothers and fathers out there working multiple jobs, spending every waking hour and every last cent on their children's well-being at the expense of their own. Congratulations for insulting them.

think that their "don't be evil" philosophy is a refreshing change from the downright predatory practices of many companies

Only if they live up to it. If it's just a marketing slogan paid lip service in exchange for PR it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Re:Incorrect

[jandrese]

It's hard to gain marketshare when your users are being tossed in jail for circumventing the government's censorship.

And in other news

[Token_Internet_Girl]

Professor Guo Quan of China has suddenly disappeared without a trace. Officials are advising his family and friends to forget he ever existed, or else.

Re:And in other news

[techpawn]

Professor Guo Quan of China has suddenly disappeared without a trace.

Shh! Big Brother doesn't like it when you talk about unpeople like that...

Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... or.

[zappepcs]

the unintended consequences of the law?

If the Chinese government has to support this case under the law, who do they fine? If Google is found guilty and forced to pay the guy, what recourse do they have for a whole barrage of such suits?

The world already knows that Chinese government forces Yahoo and Google to filter their content. Will the Chinese government support them in the legal actions, or simply disappear the guy bringing the litigation?

Interestingly, there is much ado about a similar issue in the USA. Should the government protect telecommunication companies that helped the government spy on citizens, or should those companies be left holding the bag for litigation of privacy violations?

Funny how the US Government and the Chinese Government seem to have so much in common?

evil

[Anonymous Coward]

it is impossible to both "play by the rules in China" and "do no evil"

Thanks Pontus

[Mr. Underbridge]

If China blocks your engine, the Chinese government is the one doing the evil. You aren't. When you filter content to keep secret anything a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to see, in order to pacify the government and make money from the countries business, you are doing evil. It's real simple.

It's just that subtle distinction that would make Pontus Pilate proud. Screw what's actually best for the people, as long as *you* didn't do anything directly wrong, you can sleep at night.

The world's nowhere near as simple as you'd like it to be.

Re:Thanks Pontus

[LurkerXXX]

Let me get this straight, you think it's just a subtle distinction between these two?

One way they are posting all the content for the world to see, the other they are blocking content from many so that a repressive government can keep their people ignorant.

And you compare this to the washing of hands of Pilate? Are you personally sending information about the Tiananmen square massacre to every citizen in China? If not, you are just as 'guilty' of hiding information from them as Yahoo would be for posting content to the world while, knowing it might get blocked by the Chinese government's firewall.

Re:Thanks Pontus

[Mr. Underbridge]

One way they are posting all the content for the world to see, the other they are blocking content from many so that a repressive government can keep their people ignorant.

Yeah, except that's wrong. That first way would have gotten Google completely blocked in China, which you should recall unless you've been living in a cave. So the balance is actually "one way the Chinese people get 0% of Google, the other way the Chinese people get 99% of Google." See how that's not as simple as you want it to be anymore?

And you compare this to the washing of hands of Pilate?

You're quick.

Are you personally sending information about the Tiananmen square massacre to every citizen in China?

I have, in fact, personally shared information about the Tiananmen massacre with a Chinese citizen who was unaware of its existence. Have you? Next question.

If not, you are just as 'guilty' of hiding information from them as Yahoo would be for posting content to the world while, knowing it might get blocked by the Chinese government's firewall.

That doesn't even make sense as an analogy, let alone make sense as a reasonable comparison. Here's two problems with it: 1) They didn't block the information to the entire world, just China, so no one else is worse for lacking the information. 2) under either scenario, Chinese people aren't finding information about the massacre. At least now they get access to some other information. Under your 'plan', you'd take the moral high ground, wash your hands just like Pontus Pilate, and in the end the Chinese people get no access to any information at all.

The question is which has more value - information about topics other than the Tiananmen square massacre, or your moral high horse? As a matter of net benefit, some Google is better than no Google, and from the Chinese people's perspective I'd have to imagine that benefit far outweighs your principles.

This particular topic is a perfect kool-aid test that separates pragmatists from naive idealists.

A bit unfair

[pembo13]

I wish cooperations would obey the laws of the lands _more_. Seems counter productive, at least for my wishes when once publicity stunts only harm the ones obeying the laws.

Mods, please pay attention.

[palegray.net]

Moderating someone's comment as "flamebait" when the person is merely expressing an opinion that you disagree with is just wrong. There is nothing factually inaccurate about the parent post, and if it gets your panties in a wad that's just too darn bad. For people who claim to vehemently oppose censorship, especially considering the article we're discussing, you're all pretty eager to keep some peoples' comments off the radar.

Re:Mods, please pay attention.

[nick1000]

A flamebait is a comment that has the potential to start a flamewar. I think the moderator is totally in line when he modded the GP a flamebait. On the other hand moderators who modded the parent post insightful rather that off-topic must have been on crack.

Uh, what?

[Artuir]

+1 informative? Are the moderators getting as lazy as the editors now? Zonk's gonna have to kick it up a notch to stay in the lead.

Re:Uh, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

with the new moderating system it's really easy to mod something informative instead of funny by mistake. i'm guessing that's what happened here. if the mod responsible has any dignity then he (or maybe she, i suppose it's possible) should comment on this thread.

Re:Uh, what?

[bubezleeb]

Agreed. Even though Yakov Smirnoff was not funny, an obscure reference always is. +5 Funny.

Re:Uh, what?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The problem is that no karma is rewarded for a 'funny' moderation. I tend to use insightful or underrated for jokes when I get mod points.

Re:Uh, what?

[TapeCutter]

Who gives a shit about karma? If I'm interested in funny I can use the settings page to up the score of funny mods and ignore under/over rated.

The problem is - People try to game the mod system because they (ironically) belive karma is a competion, if you think it's funny mod it as funny.

Re:Uh, what?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Because good karma helps get posts noticed, and having excellent karma with room to spare means you can post unpopular but true comments and still be seen by people before some jackass with mod points dumps a "overrated" mod on you before any other moderation has taken place.

skills put to good use...

[bubezleeb]

Idea... hack Chinese Google to ONLY display restricted results. Search "lose weight," get Wikipedia's Tiananmen Square article. Search "find love," get Amnesty International.

Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ...

[Mr. Underbridge]

...if the Chinese government has to support this case under the law, who do they fine?

Not sure what you mean. The Chinese government's not involved. Suit is in the US.

Mr Guo said that he could not sue Google or Yahoo! in China since they have no formal legal identity, but he would press his lawsuits against the parent companies in the United States.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[hellfire]

And when the people are fat and happy and distracted they forget about their civil liberties and all the bad things the government has done and focus on all the goodies and money they keep shoving into their wallet.

You make a good point, but doing business with a dictatorship alone does not guarantee the toppling of said dictator. The businesses should do business, but that business should come with strings attached by the home government. The US needs to reign in these companies from going over there and blindly following China's rules, and put pressure on China to reform. Giving them the carrot without tying it to the stick simply means you are out one carrot and doesn't guarantee you end up going anywhere on your mule.

you can rationalize anything i suppose

[circletimessquare]

"Doing business with apartheid south africa helps bring up the standard of living for the black people under it, eventually as the black middle class grows it forces reform. Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life. While (insert name of corporation that didn't pull out of south africa in the 1980s here) is being a party to the state-sponsored racism in South Africa, remember that it's really the South African government at fault, and overall (Coca Cola/ Pepsi/ etc.) will have done more good than harm."

this quote is of course pure unadulterated bullshit

the idea of having a sense of morality or a human conscience is to act on it, not explain it away

when you see someone get raped, you report the rape. if you don't report it, you have no claim on having a sense of moralit yor a human conscience. if you say nothing because you will wait for the woman to resist by herself, your bullshit rationalization is basically just an attempt by you to neutralize your human conscience, for whatever stupid or evil motivation you have

so congratulations, based on your words above, you have no human conscience

read up on apartheid and divestment. international economic sanctions HELPED BRING DOWN APARTHEID

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Western_influence

of course china is plugged into the international economy far more than south africa ever was. pulling out of china will be extremely painful for any economy. i didn't say it would be easy. but not divesting of china in one way or anyother because of china's horrible human rights record simply means the entirety of the human race has blood on its hands whenever china abuses its citizens

i'm not naive, i don't believe divestment from china is possible. but i'm not morally bankrupt either. which means the current state of affairs is simply depressing, and evil

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[ghyd]

You don't understand: because Google's motto is "don't do evil", they don't. How dare you doubt it.

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[mrlibertarian]

this quote is of course pure unadulterated bullshit

No, economic sanctions are pure, unadulterated bullshit. When you trade with an innocent consumer in another country, you are doing nothing wrong. Trying to stop two innocent parties from trading, on the other hand, is pure evil.

A Western company that trades with an African company is certainly not "a party to the state-sponsored racism", unless that trade directly aids state-sponsored racism (e.g. selling guns and ammo to the oppressors).

It doesn't matter if sanctions help bring down bad governments or not, any more than it matters if holding a terrorist's family hostage helps brings down the terrorist. The ends do not justify the means.

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Your arguments are based upon a deontological point of view. Rather, it is best to look the the consequences here and it's simple. 1. Google leaves=state run engine (baidu?) 2. Google doesnt leave= some independent content. Regarding South Africa is a bit different, but comparisons can be made. Simply put, black South Africans needed resistance from inside even if the outside pressure helps. Without those companies this may not have occurred. Kaffir Boy is a great read for uninformed people like you who don't understand the conditions of that time. You give your analogy, but you fail to recognize that the alternative would be worse. In your example it would be more like: your position: leave the woman completely, other position: help the woman a bit in exchange for personal gain. A better analogy would be to cut off someone's legs in order to stop him from dying, that is: necessary evil. Once again, deontology fails there, look to consequentialism for achieving the best ENDS.

Not to mention your flaw in portraying China as the evil empireish thing with "horrible human rights record". When you do that you don't speak from a relative point of view. are you aware of something called the Patriot Act? Guantanamo Bay? IRAQ??? Or go back a bit further in history you'll find certain SEDITIONS ACT. I'm not justifying China's actions here of course, but there's no need for this simple censorship of a POLITICAL RADICAL(by radical i mean far different from Chinese norm) to deserve such publicity when compared to other events.

Next time before you start insulting people examine your own logic.

-a debater

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can realize that if Google wasn't in China, we wouldn't know about this guy's problem.

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck trying to impose economic sanctions on China. Outside of the fact that they have a permanent seat on the UN's security council, anyway, they'd eat you for breakfast: we're more dependent on them than they are on us.

South Africa was small and - in the big picture - unimportant, so we could afford to apply pressure there (not that I'm not expressing any opinion on whether we SHOULD have or not; I'm merely saying it was possible). With China, we couldn't.

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[dscruggs]

> international economic sanctions HELPED BRING DOWN APARTHEID

And that's working real well in Cuba & Zimbabwe, eh?

China has problems, some of them serious, but its citizens are far better off economically and politically than 40 years ago, when they had no economic integration with the West (including the USSR, with whom they were considering nuclear war) and were the source of a steady stream North Korea style rhetoric.

Now there are thousands of public protests every year, an unthinkable concept in the days of Mao. This is still a long way from democracy, but the government is definitely more responsive to its citizenry than pre-Deng Xiaopeng.

Ask any Chinese citizen. I have -- my wife is from there and we have lots of Chinese friends on the mainland and in the US. One friend who moved here because of Tiananmen Square has since moved back to China because life has improved so much there.

South Africa was easier in a sense because an entire race was disenfranchised both politically and economically. If you were black, you had the moral high ground; if you were white, you were bad. This is not the case in China.

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

when you see someone get raped, you report the rape. if you don't report it, you have no claim on having a sense of moralit yor a human conscience. if you say nothing because you will wait for the woman to resist by herself, your bullshit rationalization is basically just an attempt by you to neutralize your human conscience, for whatever stupid or evil motivation you have

I think a more interesting analogy, and probably one more appropriate to what's happening here (from my limited understanding) is the hero and villain from your favorite movie. When the hero is about 2 seconds from defeating the villain, and the villain grabs the hero's love interest by the throat and threatens to kill her, the hero doesn't stab the villain anyways (usually). He backs down and waits for an opportune moment to rescue her and THEN defeat the villain.

In the same way, in my mind at least, perhaps Google is playing nice and letting this guy take whatever punishment China has deemed fit, in order to continue serving the people and help them in whatever way they can, just as the parent is suggesting. Or perhaps they really are evil and I have no idea what's going on. That's always a possibility.

"We've lost the battle, but there's still a war to fight."

Re:you can rationalize anything i suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

The evils of my own government do not make the evils of the Chinese government any less.

And if Google leaves China and refuses to participate, people will find and use proxies to get to Google, and find real information.

As it is, they are being fed a filtered version of Google, which is in many ways worse than nothing - at least with nothing, they know they are being censored.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Adams4President]

That may be true, but it may also work out the other way. "Food in your belly and a roof over your head" = happiness++. As long as people are happy, they normally don't challenge their gov't.

So is faxing blank legal papers...

[Anonymous Coward]

And then calling them to see what they think about it.

in soviet russia ... no really

[andrei.kersha]

radio programmes from BBC, Free Europe, Freedom were sources of information often contrary to Soviet propaganda. Those radio stations were periodically jammed and one could get into real trouble for listening to them. I don't see how search engine is any different here. American companies and America are often seen as the same, abroad. Being puppets for commies to make a buck is what it is. Yahoo and Google care about maximizing the value for their shareholders, not world peace.

Re:in soviet russia ... no really

[LingNoi]

I'm sure Google China employees also care about not getting put in jail, but lets just overlook that fact and scream "do no evil!" a few more times while completely ignoring Yahoo! was even mentioned..

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living

That is the argument that war profiteers (like our beloved Bush family) used to justify selling weapons to the Nazis.

When people selling weapons of war and mass destruction to mass murderers meet your standards for morals, you may wish to reconsider how low your standards are...

What if they weren't doing it to make money?

[davidwr]

When you filter content to keep secret anything a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to see, in order to pacify the government and make money from the countries business, you are doing evil. What if money wasn't the motive?

What if Google plowed all its China-related earnings into programs that promoted freedom for Chinese people?

What if they secretly funneled the funds to underground groups in China?

What if they operated in a zero-profit mode, with the goal of "getting away with as much as the Tiger will let us" in terms of providing useful even subversive information to the Chinese people while appearing to be playing by the rules?

Now, the fact of the matter is this probably isn't the case. But what if it was?

Interesting...

[Toonol]

I note that Mr Guo's name is mentioned nowhere in the Slashdot summary. Coincidence, or deliberate so as to not cause Slashdot's page to be temporarily blocked in China? And if so, is that bad (cowardice) or good (working around the restrictions)?

Re:Interesting...

[paradigmic]

Well they mention in the article that it's the 2 characters of his name, so I'm pretty sure it's only his name in Chinese that would matter. Either way I doubt it would have an effect on Slashdot being censored or not, since the majority of stuff censored by the Chinese government is Chinese language materials. Realistically someone badmouthing the Communist Party or promoting democracy in English isn't particularly dangerous since most Chinese people aren't going to understand it, and if their English is good enough to read and understand such websites they're probably a university student and are at least a little aware of what goes on with regards to censorship.

Re:Interesting...

[RealGrouchy]

So the moral value of an empirical fact is dependent on the motivation behind the action that caused the act? Is this not the ad hominem fallacy?

I would have assumed a fact to be a moral singularity.

- RG>

Re:Interesting...

[saforrest]

I note that Mr Guo's name is mentioned nowhere in the Slashdot summary. Coincidence, or deliberate so as to not cause Slashdot's page to be temporarily blocked in China? And if so, is that bad (cowardice) or good (working around the restrictions)?

More to the point, it didn't mention that there was anything political about Guo's name being removed at all., or even that he was involved with a pro-democracy movement. The wording suggested it was just another frivolous lawsuit out of vanity, like the companies who sue Google after their PageRank-exploiting schemes are defeated.

I'm more inclined to think the submitter was being lazy than deliberately suppressing details, but it's a pretty misleading summary.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Samgilljoy]

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it, eventually as the middle class grows it forces reform. Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life. While Google is being a party to the state-censorship in China, remember that it's really the Chinese government at fault, and overall Google will have done more good than harm.

This is a very old argument that comes in many forms and has been used to justify doing business with and forming political alliances with many questionable entities. While there is something to be said for engagement, it really does not demonstrably do "more good than harm" except for the government or the business that choose to cooperate. What it does is mollify critics who don't look too deeply into motivations or miss most of the contradictions in corporate and state propaganda.

And in particular...

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it...

Prove it - a priori or empirically, generally or with respect to China in particular, I don't care, just try to back that up

....eventually as the middle class grows it forces reform.

If a government creates conditions that allow for the elevation of people to what we call the middle class, those thus elevated have a heavy investment in maintaining that status quo. Moreover, the people in China with what we would consider a middle class lifestyle are still among the narrow elite, when you factor in the huge number of really poor.

Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life

Huge, huge leap necessary to get from not worrying about basic physical needs to political activism. Might also want to try to show everyone how big business benefits the majority of the dirt-poor masses, since worrying about food and shelter is really their problem, not that of the average city dweller in China who might be elevated to the middle class. Moreover, cheap and dangerous manufacturing jobs will probably be what gets them that food and roof, and I'm just not seeing poisoned factory workers as effective lobbyists.

While Google is being a party to the state-censorship in China, remember that it's really the Chinese government at fault...

Complicity? Aiding and abetting? These have no meaning for your version of ethics? It's "really China's fault"? No, if a company chooses to cooperate, it's their fault. It's China's fault that it engages in censorship. Any party that cooperates is responsible for that cooperation

The Fine Line Search Engines Walk

[micahfk]

You can follow three paths as a search engine (in simplistic terms):

1) Show everything--this implies crap sites (*coughs* boingboing), great sites (*coughs* /.), malware sites (3221.com), search results sites, etc. thereupon your results are fully awful, but absolutely representative of what a search engine is "supposed" to show by previous comments, and thus get banned in China thereby showing nothing.

2) Do as you are told--obviously not as fun and cries of shenanigans and submissions are there, but then you get to show more results to people around the world who otherwise would just be filled with pure propaganda.

3) Do your own thing--"hitting the corner of the ping-pong table", barely get by with regulations without getting punished.

Guess what? None of those are illegal to do under any international law at this point in time (although I recall some events within the US on trying to sue sites that just link to other pages, but nothing for the international arena) and certainly nothing illegal to show or not show within the US for political sites.

Remember, this is a corporation, not a government, so there is no "right" that you have for them to "display" your site in "their" index.

At least all algorithmically anyway.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[CaptainPuff]

As it is, there's also the occasional "removed due to DMCA" notices on Google searches... now would this also quailfy the US as a "evil [replubican] regime that suppresses their people and ideas"?

Insert "Guo Quan" on all your web pages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this help?

I agree to this

[rockabilly]

...But I also agree to whomever said it before me (if someone actually did) that it is not the company's fault for the filtering - its the fault of the government (law). This guy is suing the wrong parties. He should be suing the party who enacted the law.

I feel for Google and Yahoo in this instance. Why should they spend thousands of dollars in legal fees when the actions are out of their control?

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Chosen Reject]

Had Google and Yahoo! not been in China in the first place, this guy wouldn't be able to sue anyone, and thus you and I wouldn't have ever heard about him. You may call them evil for being there, but I guess it was their evilness that allows this guy an opportunity to make his voice heard.

Anyone...

[sootman]

... can make a search engine. If he doesn't like how Yahoo and Google are treating him, he should just make his own search engine. With blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the search engine...

Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence

[Maxo-Texas]

I'm afraid this changes my view of google.

I *TRUSTED* them to give me impartial and accurate information (vs MSN which was hilariously slanted for microsoft some times).

I am going to look for another search engine.

I find this behavior to be extremely repugnant.

I'm not sure I can forgive them. They will join Sony on my entire list of companies that I won't buy products from.

Full disclosure- I do still play everquest which sony bought... but other than that no purchases of any of their products for close to 6 or 7 years now as well as directing company purchases I advise on against sony every time.

Sad that a company sworn to be ethical would fall to this kind of evil behavior.

Re:Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence

[geekoid]

So, now more search engines for you, good luck with that.

Re:Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence

[f4g]

What standard are you measuring Google's behavior against in order to determine that it is evil?

Where did you get that standard?

What makes your standard any more or less valid or 'better' than the standards that the Chinese government uses to define good behavior?

(These questions say nothing about my personal convictions. They're simply good questions to ask if we're going to judge the behavior of other individuals, corporations, or governments.)

Re:Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence

[Maxo-Texas]

Since it is MY search results that give them money, it is MY standards that apply.

I feel they are behaving evilly and so I will no longer use them as a search engine or support their business.

My standards for good and evil are based on thirty years of pondering them in connection with my own lack of religious belief and the search for an ethical system not based on random assertions by ancient tribes people while also recognizing that those random assertions were the ones that helped those societies survive and prosper.

And plus, I hold google that pledges to "do no evil" to a slightly higher standard than yahoo (tho I won't be using them for search either because even by the lower standard they still crossed the line). Also, some articles i read recently show that google appears to be engaging in age discrimination as well so they had already burned some of the the good will they had with me. The fact is they are a large corporation and they are colluding with a quasi-dictator government.

Now- the chinese government may be the appropriate government for the chinese people. But, I do not have to give it money and support since many of it's value are against those I want for the world. By supporting google when it engages in this behavior, I am approving of and even to some small extent supporting financially the chinese slave prison labor, suppression of tibet, lack of religous freedom, and erasing people's existence, and other things.

Even more so- supporting scummy businesses and governments gives them an edge and slowly corrupts the less scummy businesses and governments in the world. So my small actions create an increasingly bad environment for myself-- or an increasingly better environment.

Re:Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence

[Maxo-Texas]

Let me relate this to open source.

If a company wants to do something for profit, they are welcome to purchase or write the entire software stack but cannot use many open source products.

If the chinese government wants to suppress it's own people, and then recreate all the benefits of western society and businesses, go for it. But for companies based in the west to use the safety here to suppress people in other countries is horrible. Executives who support dictatorships should be ejected from free societies and sent to live in those dictatorships.

My letter to google..

[Maxo-Texas]

Regarding suppressing references to the chinese professor:

I'm sorry, but I must stop using Google as a result of your collusion with the chinese government in erasing his existence. It certainly violates your stated founding principles so you can make money.

I will advise my friends to do so as well. Hopefully the loss of non-chinese profits will be sufficient to convince your company that this kind of behavior is too costly to continue.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[CodeBuster]

You make a good point, but doing business with a dictatorship alone does not guarantee the toppling of said dictator. Precisely, it was Milton Friedman who said in his book Capitalism and Freedom that, "Capitalism and free markets are necessary, although not sufficient conditions for political freedom."

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Anonymous Coward]

China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people

I don't have a problem with that. This is just my prsonal point of view, but I fucking hate the slant eyed cunts.

why beat up Yahoo and Google?

[nguy]

You can't win Google and Yahoo! when you play by evil rules. China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people and ideas.

You and I play by the same evil rules when we buy Chinese made electronics and clothes, made in Chinese sweat shops. The US government plays by the same evil rules when it borrows money from the Chinese (for interest!) and kowtows to Chinese monetary and trade policies.

So, don't blame Google or Yahoo alone; this is a problem that almost every American business, politician, and consumer is contributing to.

Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ...

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Interestingly, there is much ado about a similar issue in the USA. Should the government protect telecommunication companies that helped the government spy on citizens, or should those companies be left holding the bag for litigation of privacy violations?

I'm not seeing the similarity.
The government, as far as I know, didn't use its force to make the Telcos comply with their requests or threaten them with retaliation.

At least the Chinese government was open about what they were doing, and were following their own laws =-)

Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ...

[geekoid]

The should hold the bag so they have incentive to talk about it and let citizens know what is happening.

I hope this guy makes a LOT of noise.

[AndGodSed]

Go you Biscuit!

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[uniquename72]

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it Not when the business you're doing specifically furthers the people's oppression. Trade is one thing; offering up your search engine as a tool of censorship and propaganda is another.

Bullshit

[pembo13]

Forget that it was Google that did this for awhile. Company A was merely following the laws of the land. Company A has, as far as we can tell, zero influence of the laws of that land. How about getting the laws changed instead. Or is Company A breaking the laws going to make everything rosy instead?

The Real Culprit

[some old guy]

Odd, noone here seems to be willing to affix the blame for this whole flapdoodle (frapgoogle?) where it clearly belongs: China. International companies must comply with the statutory requirements of host countries or be sanctioned. If an onerous practice is required (such as the reporting of purchases or travel to regulatory agencies), it is not the company's responsibility to act like some starry-eyed paragon of glorious revolutionary activism. Businesses exist to generate profits for their equity holders. The Chinese political system is the problem, and the people of China have noone to blame but themselves for the resulting troubles. Teh internets can't undo China's police state, only the Chinese themselves can.

Not the first time.

[Fantastic Lad]

Google appears to play at this game in varying degrees. One of the better alternative news sites, (with a ladle in the conspiracy and new-age stew pots) found Google's non-linking treatment of their address to be systemic. It's hard to tell if this is the result of a glitch or somebody with a personal bias over at Mountain View or what, but this story isn't unique.

Now, I like a great deal of what Google does. I find their Google Talks series to be an especially wonderful resource. --But it's important to realize that nobody is perfect and to remain aware of such problem patterns when they arise. You can't step around obstacles unless you keep an eye on the path.

-FL

incredibly retarded

[circletimessquare]

but then again, you are "mrlibertarian". libertarianism is a gem of feeble-minded modern foolishness if there ever was one

states exist in this world. trade within, to, or from a state affects its health and its viability. to explain this any more to you would be at a pedantic level of intellectual charity i am not interested in stoooping to

concentrate real hard, and maybe some simple realities of human society that most people learn in kindergarten will dawn on you someday

you want to talk about insults?

[circletimessquare]

how about that you are someone who uses their mind and their logic to explain away their simple human responsibility to care about the well being of others

like i said, you can rationalize anything

congratulations, you've successfully rationalized your prediliction for not caring about other people

the world doesn't need more smart people. the world needs more good people

you're obviously smart. but you're also an asshole

now THAT'S an insult

xoxoxoxoxox

Google can't win either way

[sethstorm]

You have enlightened parts of the developed world coming down on Google for supporting the regime and those of the regime cutting them down for doing their job. What is that country going to have to do (short of whoring itself out to business) to dislodge itself from that issue?

They never actually said don't be evil.

[Jafafa Hots]

It was misheard. They said "Don't be weavils." They were vowing to protect cotton crops.

Google UN-Scholar

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Scholar (scholar.google.com) is decidedly unscholarly. I know of one instance where the original, most highly-cited primary publication in the literature for one of the most popular of all technologies used in biology and medicine is completely suppressed from Google Scholar search listings, when users search for the technology by name. This has been going on for years, since the inception of Google Scholar, even after sending multiple notifications to Google. (Early on, in fact, for queries that did retrieve the primary reference, Google pointed to a web page that had one of the authors' names misspelled. After notifying Google, this particular error was corrected.) The only rational explanation is that Google staff have consciously chosen to suppress the original publication, in favor of a more recent publication that is neither the original nor describes the original technology but is merely an extension of the original and appears to be hipper to Google's naive, unscholarly staff.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Anonymous Coward]

But about this, he was wrong. Unfettered capitalism and unfettered free markets are antithetical to political freedom, they will destroy it.

And China is a perfect example of this these days - China is not communist (I would argue that it has never been communist, but it certainly isn't now) it is instead something far closer to fascist. There is no trend to political freedom there, but capitalism is running rampant. Massive corporations will likely take power there very soon (I'm betting on within 20 years) - and they won't even pay lip service to the people as the current government does.

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[CodeBuster]

I think that you parsed the statement wrong. Milton said that capitalism and free markets are necessary but NOT a sufficient conditions for political freedom. China fits this definition perfectly both now and in the past. The logic is a bit subtle perhaps to the casual observer, but the supposition remains true. In other words, without free market capitalism you will never have political freedom, but neither does having free market capitalism guarantee that political freedom will follow. Capitalism and free markets merely make political freedom possible. Do you see the distinction now?