Slashdot Mirror
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."
Because as we all know...
Drum roll...
Wait for it...
In Soviet Russia, search engine sues YOU!
Thank you everybody.
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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?
Heres a link to the real article so that you don't have to visit TechDirt's crappy blog.
Times Online
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
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.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
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.
"Little is much when little you need."
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?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Idea... hack Chinese Google to ONLY display restricted results. Search "lose weight," get Wikipedia's Tiananmen Square article. Search "find love," get Amnesty International.
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.
"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
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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)?
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 lifeHuge, 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
You can follow three paths as a search engine (in simplistic terms):
/.), 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.
1) Show everything--this implies crap sites (*coughs* boingboing), great sites (*coughs*
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.
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.