Slashdot Mirror
Google.cn Has Already Lifted Censorship
An anonymous reader writes "In an update to Google's withdrawal from China, there are reports that censorship has already been lifted. It's probably taken a while to report because of Google's ranking system." Just a warning that the language on that blog post is NSFW but it does provide evidence.
Google's expat employees are now out of China.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Just a warning that the language on that blog post is NSFW but it does provide evidence.
So, do you by any chance work in a church?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
There's still search differences though
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong
is quite different to
http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong
Though either does a lot better than Yahoo!
http://search.cn.yahoo.com/s?p=falun+gong&v=web&pid=ysearch
When something is on the internet, there should be no possibility of withdraw.
DNS is the first thing that needs securing. I know DNSSEC gives authenticated proof of non-existence. That's a start, because DNS whitewashing is the low hanging fruit of internet censorship.
The internet community needs the technical infrastructure to steamroller Chinese censorship, Southern states on an anti-gambling warpath, Conservative Australian ... Peter Mandelson
I think it's more likely that there were other business considerations that had already made Google feel like it was difficult to do business with China, and the censorship lift is just PR gravy.
Who needs military to control the government when you've got cash?
Youporn banned in Germany? How come?
It isn't banned.
Google gets a fair amount of /. bashing just because it's grown as large as it has and sometimes they may even deserve it, but here we have an example of Google doing a good thing. You don't see many megacorporations taking a stand against internet censorship. Even if Google profits from this in some way and it isn't entirely a selfless act it's nice to see them doing something that benefits us little people too.
mmmm...forbidden donut
Funny it is Slashdot 'accidently popping up' for hour on end that has convinced me to face my screen away from the opening of my cubicle.
My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
I remember back when Google first decided to offer censored search in China they were questioned as to whether they were in keeping with their motto of not being evil. Some said that by cooperating with China at all they are participating in the evil being done. Others thought that it was better to offer some search to the people rather than none. People can still make use of a good quality search, and some illicit material will still be available since no filter is 100%.
Now they could just keep cooperating with the Chinese government to stay in business there. Most companies would probably do that rather than stand up for themselves and fight back. It helps themselves as much as it is a good thing to stand for.
They probably have many non-altruistic reasons for doing what they are doing. But I bet the thought of their image, or brand, and how it would look depending on what they do had an impact on what they decided. So by having the motto of "Don't be Evil", they actually become less evil. And if doing good things helps their image, and helps to make them money, then so-be-it. At least good things are being done rather than more of the status-quo of mostly evil.
Hurray Google!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
No matter what it does, we are too distrustful of large MNCs to ever assume they are capable of actually making a principled stand that would run contrary to business interests. The Google narrative of the situation is fairly clear: one of the costs of doing business in China was to kowtow to government censorship demands (complying with Chinese law, as they comply with American law in America and German law in Germany). They felt it was wrong (or not) but claimed the greater evil would be to NOT enter the search market, leaving it to be dominated by companies who would have no qualms about censorship whatsoever (see Yahoo handing over IP addresses).
They later discovered they had no leverage; the good they could do by being able to provide search results that were clearly marked as "censored" was outweighed by the harm that could be done by leaked information, and they were unable to do anything (within the bounds of Chinese law) to prevent it. Thus, they reevaluated, and are considering exiting the market.
The alternative is that it is simply a business strategy switch: they discovered the market is unprofitable, and are exiting or some shit.
The problem with this is simple: even if we concede that Chinese consumers don't click or buy anything through Google ads, rendering their business model moot, Google needs the market share. The Chinese will not always be poor. There are huge number of middle class Chinese in cities with enough disposable income to make purchases. The revenue streams will grow over the years. If they cede the market to Baidu, by the time the Chinese are rich enough to afford to buy products online through ads, Google will have to enter the market as a new player with no market share to start. Not being a business analyst for google, I do not know exactly how many clicks they need to remain profitable in China. But given the huge numbers of urban Chinese with money to spare, and the impressive rate of growth, it will only be a matter of time before (urban) China catches up to Taiwan and Korea (and eventually Japan). When that happens, it will be a much more profitable market than the US and Europe.
While I'm inclined to distrust MNCs, it is possible that they really are trying to make a stand. Did anyone know/leak this before it was announced, making them fear a Yahoo-style shitstorm? Otherwise, it would have made more sense to keep it quiet, simply say there was an attack, and leave the targets of the attack unannounced, and then continue business as usual. But no matter what it does, it will be accused of simply following the money. But hey, props to google for trying, in my book.
Censorship attempts to remove the ability to decide for yourself. Presumably he's interested in that ability and not the specific material.
A government is geographically limited. A big business can set up wherever it wants and, if sufficiently powerful, have its rules supersede the local laws. In many places in the world, corporations are more overtly powerful than governments.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
when enough of them want a change in their government and way of life, they'll fight for it.
Exactly. And you know what? They don't want to change either.
Like it or not, the current government has lifted a billion people out of horrible poverty. Some are still poor, some are doing ok, but all of them are a lot better off than their parents or grandparents were. Even the definition of "poor" has changed. The "poor" chinese of today would have been considered well-off less than a hundred years ago.
And idealism aside, hunger trumps liberty.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You know they have fought before and lost right? Even as recently as 20 years ago? It's easy to chastise the people of China when you don't live there, but I personally cannot imagine going through what they do. You even assume the majority of people in China understand the Western idea of personal liberty. It's easy to make arm chair judgments about them, but I wager that if you were in their shoes, and it was your ass on the line, you wouldn't be able to do as much as you seem to think you could.
A government that is sufficiently powerful can also set up wherever it wants, and have its rules supersede the local laws (both in the practical sense, and even further by simply replacing the government with one that will impose new laws more to the intruding government's liking -- or the intruding government can just displace the local government and assume the job for itself.) Historically, examples of this are quite common.
So, I would say that the contrast you draw is quite misguided.
The original press release did not say they lifted censorship. It said they would discuss the legality of "legal unfiltered results"
you are 1/2 right. the quote is below,
We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.
they haven't done it yet (at the time the blog was written), but they said they have decided that they will lift censorship, period. the decision was made. this is a pretty strong statement. if they backtracked on this, they would face a PR nightmare.
from TFA:
"It's not Google leaving China, it's China leaving the world."
Who knows what the algorithm is but part of it is probably cross-links in the local language. Then probably pages that are searched for a lot by different users. This would also be low in China currently.
One of my girlfriends worked with a chinese lady who swore up and down that TS never happened. Even when confronted with web evidence and after living in the US for several years. So there is a fair amount of brainwashing going on at an early age.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Hey don't laugh. It could be very helpful to use an MS-office style (Does OO.org do it too? I hardly use office apps anymore) green squiggly to highlight potential errors or areas that could be improved - light up "seize and desist" "win or loose" "for all intensive purposes", etc and it could make a huge difference to the spelling/grammar/writing-impaired.
Maybe... But do we want everyone to have that sort of power?
Spelling, word comprehension, and sentence structure can all add a veneer of validity; and particularly in the case of online posts that veneer can make a big impression.
I appreciate seeing bad grammar online the same way I appreciate the presence of racism in political discussions. Sometimes it nice to have a big flag pointing out those who either don't have a clue or aren't willing to place thought before speech.
Ghandi was chinese?
Damn, my geography needs work...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org