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

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: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.

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: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.

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..

[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..

[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..

[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.

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?

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.

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

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)?