Slashdot Mirror
Brinksmanship Continues In Google-China Row Over Censorship
According to The Financial Times, "Google has drawn up detailed plans for the closure of its Chinese search engine and is now '99.9 per cent' certain to go ahead [with the closure] as talks over censorship with the Chinese authorities have reached an apparent impasse, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking. In a hardening of positions on both sides, the Chinese government also on Friday threw down a direct public challenge to the US search company, with a warning that it was not prepared to compromise on internet censorship to stop Google leaving." "99.9 per cent" or not, both sides say they'd actually like Google to remain in China, but neither is willing to bend publicly on the question of censorship. If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.
Microsoft will move aggressively to fill the void, promising to proactively censor results AND to report people entering 'improper' terms into Bing.
They will do anything to get another fraction of a percentage point for market share.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
There was a recent slashdot story on this. The common person in China probably will not see too much of a difference with Google gone, since they do have Baidu, but scientists and researchers will since they rely heavily on Google Scholar, which China has yet to reproduce their own version of.
I'm a bit of a cynic, but it seems to me that Google wanted to leave China after they were hacked, and made an unreasonable (in context) offer to China in order to make the Chinese look like the "bad guys" and Google look like the "good guys."
I totally agree. Google is taking a stand for freedom on the internet here and it will hurt their business. Microsoft doesn't give a shit about freedom and will increase their business.
People need to really look at what companies do and judge who they should do business with or not. If Microsoft will be willing to sell the internet freedoms of Chinese citizens down the river for a buck, whats to say that someday they won't sell the internet freedoms of American citizens too?
I don't think its Google's intention to hurt China. To me it just seems they don't want to do business in a country that pushes them around.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
What this is all about.
Recently quit a lot of independent security researchers and companies showed evidence that if you do any kind of business in China, you are BOUND to be hacked by "someone" from China. They also said that there is no defence against it (the China attacks will eventually always succeed).
Google was one of the victims of such attacks. They considered the facts. What do we get by doing business in China?
1) Small market share (the Chinese search engine Baidu dominates the search engine market in China)
2) Trojans on our internal networks.
Let's give up (because of 1 and 2). But let's do it in a way that wins us PR points. Let's do it in a way that makes us look good. Like, true fighters for freedom.
Let's tell them we're not going to obey their laws and regulations. We (Google) KNOW that they will not allow us to get away with that. But we don't care, because we've decided to leave anyway.
I'm a bit of a cynic, but it seems to me that Google wanted to leave China after they were hacked, and made an unreasonable (in context) offer to China in order to make the Chinese look like the "bad guys" and Google look like the "good guys."
Getting hacked by state-sponsored hackers seems like enough of a reason all on its own, no need to make up another one.
Seems more like an attempt to use the hacking as leverage to reduce censorship requirements as in "you hacked us, we're leaving unless you cut restrictions on our business."
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Anything that rusts the machinery of their fucked government is better. Scientists losing access to important/useful data? This is good news, as it will slow them down. Hopefully, it will be one of many things that will affect change in the country. The first domino, or perhaps, just the middle domino?
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
No, I don't think they ever liked it. From the start Google wasn't offering all its products and had a differianted position on the state censoring and human rights violations. They werren't offering blogs, for example, since they didn't want to cooperate with the chinese police on that issue. This was stated publicly by Google. Competing with a state owned search gigant, while the same state steals your property, can't be much fun for Google.
Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?
It's Sergei, mostly.
Can't find the reference right now, but there's a story out there in which it's posited that his childhood experience in the Soviet Union left him with an aversion to coercive state power. He allowed himself to be talked into going into China by Schmidt and Page, but when it became clear that China was using them to target human rights activists, Sergei baulked.
Having agreed at the outset to put limits on what they would put up with from China, Larry and Eric had no choice but to go along when Sergei insisted that they retaliate.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
No, Google has a more honest privacy policy. Didn't you read that story about how much information Microsoft has and their policies for turning it over? It was on Wikileaks a while back, I think. That's the problem with people like you. Can't handle honesty, so you punish the guys who are honest and go with the shady guys because they know how to manipulate you into thinking they're trustworthy (even though they're doing everything the other guys are doing and more, just out of the public eye).
Oh, and it's Chinese law to censor search results. There are *NO* search engines operating in China that don't censor. Bing operates in China, so they censor. They just keep quiet about it, though, and that causes the uninformed to conclude that they're more trustworthy.