Slashdot Mirror
China Warns Google To Obey Or Leave
suraj.sun writes with this snippet from an Associated Press report:
"China's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that Google must obey its laws or 'pay the consequences,' giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking. 'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature. ... 'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said. 'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. 'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said."
Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke. I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with. I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results? Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.
Information yearns to be free.
Living With a Nerd
"Protecting the rights of the country and its people", brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
regardless of google leaves or stays, american companies are going to suck up to china, and american government is going to do that too. maybe only there will be a few weak statements regarding the state of human rights in china. it will be business as usual :
american companies are going to help chinese government in suppressing its own citizens for profit. american companies are going to help chinese government to do anything that conflicts with american constitution, and american ideals you people are so proud of.
and you get worked up everytime someone points that out ....
Read radical news here
Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
Li is a lying little tyrannical thug. What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Anything that would promote a different party is harming stability right? I mean, we can't afford to change our dictator too often if we wish to preserve stability!
Their government does not want the kind of "openness" and free exchange of information that is Google's trade. That is their prerogative. Google should pull out.
They won't, of course. Too much money to be made there.
They will cave in, compromise, and do (more) Evil.
It'll be interesting to see how Google's PR monkeys spin it, from a front-row-seat-at-the-Fall-of-Civilization perspective...
You bitch about China, but you continue to buy their wares. You let the U.S. go farther into debt and let China lend us more cash.
Hypocrites.
As much as I hate to say it, China really has Google by the balls on this one. I'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says.
I really don't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China, although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Whoa there. Government itself is inherently sterile. Government can empower its citizens, or it can empower its leaders, but not both at the same time.
The problem is that leaders always turn government so it empowers them, not us. Power-hungry leaders who run the government are the problem...the government itself only does what its leaders tell it to do.
Living With a Nerd
Compared to most big companies Google isn't that bad.
Compared to governments Google is a saint.
But that doesn't mean that they are right every time. In some way I expect that if they have to leave they do leave behind as little as possible.
What China should fear is instead the risk of having their connection to the rest of the internet cut off or at least limited.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Well, it poses a Catch-22 for Google...
In their first option, they can stand up to their philosophical beliefs --which is a VERY rare thing these days for any major company-- and keep up the fight. If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... If they lose, not only would they be kicked out and lose money, some of their people possibly could wind up in a Chinese prison (It is violating the law after all)...
In their second option, they can bow to the pressure and keep censoring content in China. If they do this, they are sacrificing their philosophical beliefs for the almighty dollar... This would be a crushing blow to the anti-censorship movement (as one of its most powerful allies will have bowed to the pressure)...
Finally, they could leave China altogether. This could have 2 paths. Either someone (MS with Bing?) would jump in their place right away and it would be like nothing ever happened (Which would also hurt the anti-censorship movement). Or, with luck, other companies that are not happy with the censorship will leave too. It could provide energy to the anti-censorship movement in China...
So, to me, the best option would be #1. In all 3 cases, there is potential to harm the anti-censorship movement. But only the first case has a significant chance to REALLY help it. If Google REALLY wants to promote freedom of information, #1 is the only way to go (Again, IMHO)...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... If they lose, not only would they be kicked out and lose money, some of their people possibly could wind up in a Chinese prison (It is violating the law after all)...
I'm pretty sure that if Google started an intellectual and philosophical movement in China that some of their people would definitely end up in a Chinese prison or worse.
Any government that is afraid of its people having information
(let's perhaps make an exception for specific information on how to make weapons of mass destruction
out of common household ingredients)
is inherently not a government "of the people for the people".
It is not confident in its own popularity, or in the inherent stability through general agreement
of its governmental system.
Does the Chinese government not realize that their insistence on censorship simply
highlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
They will stay... they are money whores just like everyone else.
Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point. Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best). China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika. They are eager to avoid the same mistake, as the costs of social instability (both human and economic) would be far too high, for the country, its people, and not least themselves.
This isn't about Tiananmen or the Great Leap Forward, which are pretty much open secrets. It's about suppressing free flow of information, and maintaining control over all mediums of information exchange. They had control of the traditional media, phones, SMS, etc. The internet is another beast. Finding out and sharing information about corruption and other major shortfalls is far too easy with an open, uncensored internet. They don't want peasants knowing too much about local corruption, and when they do know, they don't want them to be able to organize or share this information. Censorship is a key component; allowing criticism of the government even on such now-unimportant bygones as the Great Leap Forward would potentially open the floodgates on new criticism on issues that could result in instability.
So, Li is right. In order to suppress dissent, they must maintain control and continue censoring. Whether you think the cost imposed by censorship and lack of free speech is greater than the potential losses from any resulting social instability is another matter entirely. Many Chinese think, and I often agree, that while the Chinese government is too sensitive right now, maintaining a stable environment for economic growth is a bigger priority than free speech. The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government. In their minds, censorship and its evils are the lesser evil, when compared to potential civil strife.
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
I'm just not sure that Google, or we at /., should be the ones deciding that some of the Chinese people should start dying for this. I'm pretty sure that it should be their decision.
Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations.
Wow, this is such a bad misconception that if you base your actions on this idea, you will end up doing weird things like flying a plane into a government building. Government isn't our enemy, it is our collective way of cooperating and getting things done. You should read the preamble to the constitution sometime, it tells the purpose of government. Then look at Somalia for a vivid example of why government is better than none. It's good there are no warlords in America.
Instead think of government as a kind of servant. It exists to do our will. It is run by people, so it is not perfect, and you certainly need to watch it, otherwise it will start doing stuff you don't want it to do (government responds to people who pay attention to it: if the only people who pay attention are the ones that want special kickbacks, then it will respond mainly to them).
Seriously, do you think Obama is your enemy? Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy? I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people. Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much. Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.
There are some people in government who are enemies of the people, and these people should be identified and removed, but that is different than saying that government is the enemy. "Government is the enemy" is some kind of backward reactionist ideology. Instead view government as a tool: it can benefit or harm us, much like a hammer.
Qxe4
If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... ...It could provide energy to the anti-censorship movement in China...
Tiananmen.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,'
If information can harm the stability of you're country, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!
I am not sure that this is really about censorship. This is a staring contest.
Google called China out as a pack of thieves and thugs by revealing their hacking and break-ins.
Google made a statement that this was close to the 'last straw', and that they were thinking of leaving China.
This is an attempt by China to try to out stare Google. The topic on the table isn't really the question of 'Will Google stay in China an stop filtering the internet'? By changing the focus of the debate, China is trying to recast the issue as China's laws vs. a foreign company who doesn't want to follow them.
If Google leave under these terms, it doesn't look as bad for China.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Human rights have nothing to do with it. Google was hacked. If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer. Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.
According to us, and our culture they may be, but not according to the host which has accepted them as a dinner guest. It's morally relative and looks a lot like a modern-day "The King and I".
The problem is you are comparing our culture to China's government, not China's culture. You may be right that China's culture says that censoring is the right thing to do. If China had a democracy, you could argue that its censorship rules reflected its culture (I would argue that you were wrong, but I would agree that you could make that case), but China does not have a government that even vaguely resembles a democracy, so the position of its government is not inherently a product of the culture of the majority of its people.
Actually, another problem with your idea that anti-censorship is a reflection of Western culture is that a large number of Westerners would support censorship of certain content if they could be sure that it would be limited to content that they oppose (see University speech codes).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
It is always easy to say it is worth it when you are not the person going to jail or having your family threatened. I can agree that morally it would be worth it, but if I were in such a position I don't know what fraction of Slashdot readers (myself included) would actually do anything. It is really easy to talk about doing the right thing against an oppressive regime when you're elsewhere.
The belief that censorship is wrong is not very wide at all. The first amendment would have no chance of passing anywhere in today's world, including the US. That whole part of "no Law" is a real stickler. Despite the supreme court's weasel words stating otherwise. The majority, and especially the middle class is very authoritarian. Nobody wants to rock the boat during sweeps week.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Well, no matter what Google does, people dying isn't going to be Google's decision, /.'s decision, or their own. It's going to be the government's decision.
Let's not get confused about who is pointing the guns and would be responsible for murders. If Google decides, "fuck this," all they're doing is deciding "fuck this," not killing people.
I'm so surprised! A sovereign nation with an authoritarian government insists that foreign companies abide by its laws! Who woulda thunk...